Cited by

A district court may terminate parental rights “only for grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

8, 2019) (statutory basis); d 76, 87 (Minn. App. 2012) (decision to terminate).

“Because the best-interests analysis involves credibility determinations and is generally not susceptible to an appellate court’s global review of a record, we give considerable deference to the district court’s findings.” (quotation omitted).

The district court must consider (1) the child’s interest in maintaining the relationship, (2) the parent’s 15 interest in preserving the relationship, and (3) “any competing interests of the child.”

A parent’s incarceration does not excuse the county from making reasonable efforts to reunify 7 We need not to consider the district court’s other statutory -termination determinations because “we need only one properly supported statutory ground in order to affirm a termination order.”

“An evidentiary error is not prejudicial 8 if the record contains other evidence that is sufficient to support the findings.”

A district court may terminate parental rights only for “grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

The district court must consider both the child’s interests and the parent’s interests in preserving the relationship and “any competing interests of the child.” see Minn. R. Juv.

d 76, 92 (Minn. App. 2012).

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

“Even when statutory grounds for termin ation are met, the district court must separately find that termination is in the child’s best interests.”

A district court “abuses its discretion if it improperly applies the law.” rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2012).

“Competing interests include health considerations, a stable environment, and the child’s preference.” (“In considering the best interests of a child, stability is a factor which must be given high priority”).

“The 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.” We also reject father’s assertion that he was never told about restrictions on contact between child and mother.

The county bears the burden of proving the gr ounds for 4 “[W]e need only one properly supported statutory ground in order to affirm a termination order.” rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2012).

d 76, 90 (Minn. App. 2012).

DECISION Parental rights may only be terminat ed for “grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and we review the district court’s ultimate determination regarding the best interest s factors for an abuse of discretion, W.L.P., d at 711.

“Even when statutory grounds for termination are met, the district court must separately find that termination is in the child[ren]’s best interests.”

(stating that “[a]n evidentiary error i s not prejudicial if the record contains other evidence that is sufficient to support the findings ”); see also Waters v. Fiebelkorn , (noting, generally, that “error without prejudice is not ground for reversal.”).

“The 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.”

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

“A district court abuses its discretion if it improperly applies the law.”

“Because the best-interests analysis involves credibility determinations and is generally not susceptible to an appellate court’s global review of the record, we give considerable deference to the district court’s findings.” (quotation omitted).

(“Because the best - interests analysis involves credibility determinations and is generally not su sceptible to an appellate court’s global review of a record, we give considerable deference to the district court’s findings.” (quotation omitted)).

Even when the district court finds that a statutory ground for termination is met, “the district court must separately find that termination is in the child’s best interests.”

d 76, 87 (Minn. App. 2012).

-8 7 (Minn. App. 2012) (indicating that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered).