Cited by

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.”

A parent ’s “[f] ailure to satisfy requirements of a court-ordered case plan provides evidence of a parent ’s noncompliance with the duties and responsibilities under sectio n 260C.301, subdivision 1(b)(2).”

“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).

in light of the clear and convincing standard of proof.”

The district court can consider such things as “the children’s need for stability and predictability, [and a parent’s] limited bond with the children.” d 656, 668 (Minn. App. 2012).

A finding is clearly erro neous if it is “manifestly c ontrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”

(indicating that a parent’s completion of a case plan does not “necessarily equate[] with a correcti on of the conditions th at led to the out-of- home placement”).

6, 2012); (“In considering the child’s best interests, the district court must balance the preservation of the parent -child relationship against any competing interests of the child.”).

-67 (Min n. App. 2012) (affirming a termination of parental rights based on failure to comply with parental duties, noting both that the parent failed to comply with the case plan and that the record ot herwise showed that the parent did not adequately care for the children); d

The district court can consider such things as “the children’s need for stability and predictability, [and a parent’s] limited bond with the children.” d 656, 668 (Minn. App. 2012).

See, - 9 67 (Minn. App. 2012).

“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).

The district court can consider such things as “the children’s need for stability and predictability, [and a parent’s] limited bond with the children.”

Even though mother was on the path of complying with a majority of her case plan, that does not “necessarily equate[] with a correction of the conditions that led to the out-of-home placement.” In re Welfare of Children of 12 K.S.F.

We have said “there is no presumption that completion of a case plan necessarily equates with a cor rection of the conditions that led to the out -of-home placement.”

“Competing interests include such things as a stable environment, health considerations and the child’s preferences.” (quotation omitted).

“Competing interests include such things as a stable environment, health considerations, and the child’s preferences.” (quotation omitted).

We review the district court’s factual findings “to determine whether they address the statutory criteria for termination and are not clearly erroneous, in light of the clear-and- convincing standard of proof.” (citation omitted).

“Competing interests include such things as a stable environment, health considerations and the child’s preferences.” (quotation omitted).

3(b)(3); d 656, 668 (Minn. App. 2012) (“In considering the child’s best interests, the district court must balance the preservation of the parent-child relationship against any competing interests of the child.”).

-68 (Minn. App. 2012) (affirming termination of parental rights of mother who, despite education, instruction, and other services, could not adequately parent her children).

-68 (Minn. App. 2012) (affirming termination of parental rights of mother who, despite education, instruction and other services, could not adequately parent her children); d 426, 427-31 (Minn. App. 1986) (affirming termination of parental rights of mother who failed to unders

ntal duties because he “failed to keep the children safe” and “failed to cooperate in any significant way with the Court ordered case plan.” Although a “[f]ailure to satisfy requirements of a court-ordered case plan provides evidence of a parent’s noncompliance with [parental] duties and responsibilities under section 260C.301, subdivision 1(b)(2),” d 656, 666 (Minn. App. 2012), this court generally requires more than a mere failure to complete a case plan to affirm a termination of parental rig

We review the district court’s factual findings “to determine whether they address the statutory criteria for termination and are not clearly erroneous, in light of the clear-and- convincing standard of proof.” (citation omitted).

d 656, 667 (Minn. App. 2012).

On appeal, we review the district court’s factual findings “to determine whether they address the statutory criteria for termination and are not clearly erroneous, in light of the clear-and-convincing standard of proof.” (citation omitted).

“Competing interests include such things as a stable environment, health considerations and the child’s preferences.” (quotation omitted).