Cited by

And “[a] parent’s failure to comply with a reasonable case plan results in a presumption that the parent has failed to correct the conditions leading to out-of-home placement.”

“But we need only one properly supported statutory ground in order to affirm a termination order.”

“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

rev. denied (Minn. May 12, 2021); (stating that we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error).

(stating that we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error).

“Competing interests include health considerations, a stable environment, and the child’s preference.”

of J.C.L., rev. denied (Minn. May 12, 2021); (stating that we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error).

On appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we “closely inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether it was clear and convincing.” (quotation omitted).

However, an appellate court may affirm the termination of parental rights based on just one “properly supported statutory ground.”

of J.C.L., rev. denied (Minn. May 12, 2021); d 76, 87 (Minn. App. 2012) (stating that we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error).

As such, “[t]he county’s efforts must be aimed at alleviating the conditions that gave rise to out-of-home placement, and they must conform to the problems presented.” rev. denied (Minn. 11 July 17, 2012).

In particular, “[t]he court must find that at the time of termination, the parent is not presently able and willing to assume his responsibilities and that the parent’s neglect of these duties will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.” (quotation omitted).

“A new trial may be granted on the basis of an improper evidentiary ruling only if the appellant demonstrates prejudicial error.”

“But we need only one properly supported statutory ground in order to affirm a termination order.”

A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing the termination of parental rights, “[t]he critical issue is not whether the parent formally complied with the case plan, but rather whether the parent is presently able to assume the responsibilities of caring for the child.”

“[F]ailure to complete the case plan amounts to a failure to correct the conditions leading to out-of-home placement.”

“Competing interests include health considerations, a stable environment, and the child’s preference.”

“Competing interests include health considerations, a stable environment, and the child’s preference.”

A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

The district court must consider three factors: (1) the child’s interest in preserving the relationship , (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the relationship and (3) “any competing interests of the child.” see Minn. R. Juv.

A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by t he evidence as a 12 whole.” (quotation omitted).

But “we need only one properly supported statutory ground in order to affirm a termination order.”

Moreover, even assuming mother did respond to the county’s concerns, “[a] parent’s substantial compliance with a case plan may not be enough to avoid termination of parental rights when the record contains clear and convincing evidence supporting termination.”

“The county’s efforts must be aimed at alleviating the conditions that gave rise to out-of-home placement, and they must conform to the problems presented.”

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, , and we review the district court’s ultimate determination of palpable unfitness for an abuse of discretion