Cited by

DECISION “Parental rights may be terminated only for ‘grave and weighty reasons.’” (citing In re Welfare of 4 Child of E.V., ).

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).

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).

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).

DECISION I. Standard of review Parental rights may only be terminated for “grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

(concluding that any error in admission of challenged evidence was harmless because it was cumulative to other evidence, and, therefore, was not prejudicial).

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

Because natural parents are presumed to be fit to care for their children, parental rights may be terminated only for “grave and weighty reasons.”

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

A district court abuses its discretion if it improperly applies the law.” (citation omitted).

1(b)(4); (concluding that the district court “properly took into account [the child’s] uniquely demanding medical needs” when it held that the parent in that case was palpably unfit “to meet [the child’s] extraordinary needs.”).

Courts presume that natural parents are fit to care for their children, and parental rights may only be terminated for “grave and weighty reasons.”

Id.; see also In re Welfare of Child of 11 J.K.T., (stating that “evidentiary error is not prejudicial if the record contains other evidence that is sufficient to support the findings”).

(affirming that mother’s substantial compliance 2 The county acknowledged at oral argument that it stopped providing services to appellant after her parental rights were terminated.

subdivision 1(b)(4), requires factual findings that manifest “(1) a consistent pattern of specific conduct before the child or specific conditions, (2) directly relating to the parent and child relationship, (3) of a duration or nature that renders the parent unable to care appropriately for the needs of the child, (4) for the reasonably foreseeable future.”

To lay foundation for the admission of an exhibit under the business-records exception, “a qualified witness must testify that the records were kept in the course of a regularly-conducted business activity, and that it was the normal practice of that business to keep such records.”

(stating that “evidentiary error is not prejudicial if the record contains other evidence that is sufficient to support the findings”); GN Danavox, Inc. v. Starkey Labs., Inc., (concluding that cumulative evidence was not prejudicial).