Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: D. L. D. and M. E. F., Parents, 865 N.W.2d 315.

159 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: E. P., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“On appeal of a juvenile-protection order, we review the juvenile court’s factual findings for clear error and its finding of a statutory basis for the order for abuse of discretion.” review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. O., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: P. A. S. and D. J. P., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: D. O., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“That the factual bases for the condition at the time of the adjudicatory hearing were not identical to the factual bases for the condition at the time 11 of removal does not undermine the juvenile court’s statutory finding that the overall co
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: P. A. S. and D. J. P., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2016
9 Furthermore this court has held, “Even if the parent eliminates the factual bases that existed at the time of the child’s removal, if a new factual basis arises after removal, the condition [for keeping the child out of the home] cannot be corrected until that new factual basis also has been eliminated.” review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J.W. and M.T., Parents (A15-0800), J.W. and J.O., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: J.W. and M.T., Parents (A15-0800), J.W. and J.O., … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 315, 324 (Minn. App. 2015) (“That the factual bases for the condition at the time of the adjudicatory hearing were not identical to the factual bases for the condition at the time of removal does not undermine the .
In re: the Petition of K. P. W. and J. L. H. to Adopt S. Q.-B. W., a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: the Petition of K. P. W. and J. L. H. to Adopt S. Q.-B. W., a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-22 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (July 20, 2015).