Cited by

(stating that “[a]n evidentiary error is not prejudicial if the record contains other evidence that is sufficient to support the findings”).

25, 1985); d 76, 90 (Minn. App. 2012).

Though the district court may only terminate parental rights for “grave and weighty” reasons, (quotation omitted) , the district court ’s decision to terminate parental rights is given 4 “considerable deference,”

(“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 .”).

review dismissed (Minn. July 17, 2012).

To terminate parental rights under this statutory basis the district court must find that “at the time of termination, the parent is not presently able and willin g to assume his resp onsibilities and that the parent’s neglect of these duties will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period.” (quotation omitted).

The district court “must also consider the length of time the county wa s involved and the quality of effort given.” (quotation omitted).

“The decision whether to admit or exclude evidence is discretionary with the district court.”

(concluding that while the love between parent and child was undisputed, because of the child’s complex medical needs, the parent lacked the sk ills necessary to provide for the child’s best interests).

“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.”

compli ed with the case plan, but rather whether the parent is presently able to assume the responsibilities of caring for the child.”

The district court may terminate parental rights to a child “only for grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N A parent’s rights to a child may be terminated “only for grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

complied with the case plan, but rather whether the parent is presently able to assume the responsibilities of caring for the child.”

A court should consider “the length of the time the county was involved and the quality of effort given.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION Courts presume that natural parents are fit to care for their child, and “[p]arental rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

But “a parent’s love and desire to regain custody may not be enough.”

DECISION Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by determining that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family.2 Courts presume that parents are fit to care for their children, and “[p]arental rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION Courts presume that parents are fit to care for their children, and “[p]arental rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION Courts presume that natural parents are fit to care for their children, and “[p]arental rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

“Reasonable efforts encompass more than just a case plan.”