Cited by

“Failure to satisfy requirements of a court-ordered case plan provides evidence of a parent’s noncompliance with the duties and responsibilities under section 260C.301, subdivision 1(b)(2).”

The district court “must balance the preservation of the parent-child relationship against any competing interests of the child.”

This court reviews a district court’s factual findings “to determine whether they address the statutory criteria for termination and are not clearly erroneous.”

We review a district court’s factual findings “to determine whether they address the statutory criteria for termination and are not clearly erroneous.”

Moreover, 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 section 260C.301, subdivision 1(b)(2).”

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

In balancing the preservation of the parent-child relationship against the best interests of the child, the district court should consider “such things as a stable environment, health considerations and the child’s preferences.” (quotation omitted).

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).

(stating that a parent’s “failure to satisfy key elements of the court-ordered case plan provides ample evidence of [the parent’s] lack of compliance with the duties and responsibilities of the parent-child relationship”); (applying Simon).

The district court “must balance the preservation of the parent-child relationship against any competing interests of the child.”