Cited by

It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to conclude that appellants’ “strong attachment to the children” would not serve those interests based on its finding that “they could not see the value in any other placement for the children” and “would contest any placement or action taken in regard to the children other than placement with them.” (holding that juvenile protection proceedings “require an expeditious resolution of permanency because we will not allow children to linger i

“When interpreting rules of procedure, we look first to the plain language of the rule,” and “[w]here the language is plain and unambiguous, that plain language must be followed.” (quotation omitted).

“We require an expeditious resolution of permanency because we will not allow children to linger in uncertainty.” see also In re Welfare of J.R., Jr., (emphasizing that failure to adhere to the timelines established in the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure may result in harm to the child).

(explaining that “[w]hen 4 Caselaw distinguishes between due-process claims based on procedural violations and due-process claims based on violations of substantive due-process rights.

(interpreting rules of juvenile protection procedure de novo to determine whether appeal was timely).

P. 1.02(b) (providing the rules are intended to provide a “just, thorough, speedy, and efficient determination” (emphasis added)); (“We require an expeditious resolution of permanency because we will not allow children to linger in uncertainty.”); (citing multiple authorities emphasizing the importance of prompt decisions in juvenile-protection matters).

Before beginning our analysis, we recognize that “procedural rules should be construed to preserve the right to an appeal.” d 156, 161 (Minn. 2017).

The reason for these timelines is that “[w]e require an expeditious resolution of permanency because we will not allow children to linger in uncertainty.” (explaining that “time for a child is different than time for adults,” and “from a child’s view, a delay is a delay regardless of the reason”).

n.9 (Minn. 2017) (recognizing the rules as “seek[ing] to ensure due process for all parties”).

As the supreme court has explained, “ We require an expeditious resolution of permanency because we will not allow children to linger in uncertainty.” .

d 156, 159 (Minn. 2017).

160 (Minn. 2017) ("Our plain-language interpretation is sufficient to resolve the case.").