Cited by

Under ICWA and MIFPA, a district court “cannot terminate parental rights unless it determines that evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that continued parental custody of the child is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.” -30 (Minn. 2018).

of S.R.K., see also Peterson, d at 763.

of S.R.K., (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2022).

When addressing whether a statute’s language is ambiguous, “words and phrases are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2020 ); (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2016) in a TPR appeal).

“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” (quotation omitted).

of S.R.K., the supreme court determined that the county had failed to prove a TPR petition and remanded the case to the district court to dismiss the petition without prejudice, but the supreme court noted that the county remained “free to bring a new petition at any time.”

(concluding that an interpretation that leaves some provisions of the statute superfluous is “untenable”).

“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

d 821, 830 (Minn. 2018).

“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

d 821, 830 (Minn. 2018).

review denied (Minn. Jan.

testimony are left to the factfinder.”