Cited by

Father cites and to support his assertion that the district court’s TPR order should be reversed because he was not given a statutorily required case plan.

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

of B.M., (quotation omitted).

of B.M., (quotation omitted).

Instead, he cites to to argue that the county’s reasonable efforts must include providing the parent with a reasonable opportunity to parent, which, he further argues, means the county should have allowed J.D.

DECISION “Parental rights should only be terminat ed for grave and weighty reasons.” (quotation omitted).

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

Parental rights are terminated only for “grave and weighty reasons” and “when the evidence clearly mandates such a result.” (quotation omitted)

( quotation omitted), and “when the evidence clearly mandates such a result, ” In re Welfare of S.Z.

Parental rights are terminated only for “grave and weighty reasons” and “when the evidence clearly mandates such a result.” (citation omitted); In re Welfare of S.Z.

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

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

See In re Welfare of Children of 7 B.M.

(holding that specific conditions at the time of the hearing are the focus of palpable unfitness inquiry).

“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility o f witnesses.”

“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.” (quotation omitted).

“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.” (citation omitted).

-62, 565-66 (Minn. App. 2014) (reversing a TPR order where the county was statutorily required to make reasonable efforts to reunify parent with child and “[t]he district court made no 13 finding that reasonable efforts were undertaken by the county or that such e

(stating that the “district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses” (quotation omitted)).

ugh “[appellate courts] closely inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence” to support the termination of parental rights, “[c]onsiderable deference is due to the district court’s [TPR] decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses,” (quotation omitted).

Neither the supreme court’s holdings in and nor our holding in require a different conclusion.

.” (emphasis added)); (treating as unpersuasive county’s argument regarding father’s past susceptibility to exploitation, which was no longer an issue at time of trial).

does not mean M.S. is unfit.” (agreeing with B.M.

& C.G., (concluding that district court’s finding that a parent had an IQ of 73 was not sufficient to establish his unfitness to parent).