Cited by

Similarly, “[e]ven if the record might support findings different from those made by the court, this does not show that the court’s findings are defective.” rev. denied (Minn. Jul.

“Even if the record might support findings different from those made by the court, this does not show that the court’s findings are defective.” rev. denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

“We defer to the district court’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight given to the evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

(stating that parental rights “may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

t interests, they are “inadequate to facilitate effective appellate review, to provide insight into which facts or opinions were most persuasive of the ultimate decision, o r to demonstrate the court’s comprehensive consideration of the statutory criteria.” Tanghe, d at 626 (); (cautioning reviewing court against “ combing through the record to determine best interests” because such activity “ involves credibility determinations ”).

(citing this aspect of Vangsness in a juvenile-protection appeal).

“Competing interests include such things as a stable environment, health considerations and the child’s preferences.” review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

While we agree that the competing interests raised by the county could have been considered by the district court , “[e]ven if the record might support findings different from those made by the court, this does not show that the court’s findings are defective.”

(citing this aspect of Vangsness in a juvenile-protection appeal).

410 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

“Competing interests include such things as a stable environment, health considerations and the child ’s preferences.” d 405, 414 (Minn. App. 2011) (quoting R.T.B., d at 4) , review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

opinion stands in contrast to prior opinions of this court that, in one way or another, suggest that, to reb ut the statutory presumption, “‘a parent must affirmatively and actively demonstrate her or his ability to successfully parent a child .’” See J.W., d at 446 (quoting D.L.R.D., d at 251); review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011); D.L.D., d at 544; -56 (Minn. App. 2007); W.L.P., d at 710.

(“We defer to the district court’s determinations of witness credibility .

In review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011), the parent successfully rebutted the presumption by showing two years of sobriety, attendance at AA meetings, a commitment to avoid “unhealthy relationships that might adversely affect her sobriety or [the child’s] safety,” termination of her unhealthy relat

(reviewing district court’s decision to allow parent to withdraw voluntary termination of parental rights for abuse of discretion), review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).1 The parent bears the burden of showing a “serious and compelling reason” to justify “once again uproot[ing] the child.” In

(stating that “determination of a child’s best interests is generally not susceptible to an appellate court’s global review of a record,” and “an appellate court’s combing through the record to determine best interests is 11 inappropriate becau

To rebut the presumption, “a parent must introduce sufficient evidence that would allow a factfinder to find parental fitness.” review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

Appellate courts “defer to the district court’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight given to the evidence.” (citing L.A.F., d at 396), review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

(“Determination of a child’s best interests is generally not susceptible to an appellate court’s global review of a record, and an appellate court’s combing through the record to determine best interests is inappropriate because it involves credibility determinations.” (quotations omitted))

(stating findings are not clearly erroneous if supported by the evidence as a whole).

review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

(noting that “a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses” (); (stating that “[appellate courts] defer to the district court’s determinations of witness credibility and the weight given to the evidence” (citing L.A.F.)), review denied (Minn. Jul.

(“[A] parent is not precluded from revoking a voluntary consent to termination for any reason before the court has accepted the consent and ordered termination.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).

review denied (Minn. July 28, 2011).