Cited by

“The district court must also determine that, at the time of termination, the parent is not presently able and willing to assume her responsibilities and that the condition will continue for the reasonably foreseeable future.” see also In re Welfare of S.Z., 547 N.W .2d 886, 893 (Minn. 1996) (instructing district court to “address conditions that exist at the time of the hearing”).

“[W]e will not conclude that a district court has abused its discretion absent a resolution of the question that is against logic and the facts of record.” d 648, 660 (Minn. App. 2018).

d 648, 657 (Minn. App. 2018).

Where “there is ample evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusion that mother is in no position to care for [the children] in the reasonably foreseeable future,” a “district court act[s] within its discretion in finding that [the children’s] best interests would be served by terminating mother’s parental rights.”

of A.D.B., ; rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2015) ; (stating that “[w]hen statutes explicitly entrust the district court to determine what is appropriate, we review for an abuse of discretion”).

The district court must “determine that at the time of termination, the parent is not presently able and willing to assume [their] responsibilities and the condition will continue for the reasonably foreseeable future.”

Children of J.R.B., d at 905.

When analyzing best interests, the district court balances: “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a) (2020); (discussing reasonable-efforts 9 requirement in context of termination of parental rights).

Appellate courts “apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests.”

Some of these duties may be characterized as “basic care,” but parental duties go beyond providing “basic care.” The district court must also “determine at the time of termination, the parent is not presently able and willing to assume [their] responsibilities and the condition will continue for the reasonably foreseeable future.”

see also, (stating that, in the context of children who are not Indigenous Americans, “the petitioner must show clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts were made to reunite the parent with the child.”).

“In analyzing a child’s best interests, the district court must balance three factors: ‘(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent -child relationship; and (3) any competing inter est of the child.’” (quoting In re Welfare of R.T.B.

The Best Interests of the Children Appellate courts “apply an abuse -of-discretion standard of review to a d istrict court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests.”

Termination of parental right s requires clear and convincing evidence that “reasonable efforts were made to reunite the parent with the child.”

Appellate courts “apply an abuse -of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s conclusion that termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests.”

663 (Minn. App. 2018) (considering county’s efforts to address chemical depende ncy, provide transportation, inform of necessary reunification steps, 15 maintain contact, and require drug testing); In re Welfare of A.H.

Termination of parental rights require s clear and convinci ng evidence that “reasonable efforts were made to reunite the parent with the child.”

1(b)(5)(iv) (establishing the requirement s for the termination of parental rights) (2020)

“When statutes explicitly entrust the district court to determine what is appropriat e, we review for an abuse of discretion.” (stating that, in the contexts of motions to restrict parenting time and motions to modify custody, “we review de novo whether the district court properly treated the alle gations in the moving party’s affidavits as true” and

(quotation omitted) ; see Minn. R. Juv.

“The district court must also determine that, at the time of termination, the parent is not presently able and willing to assume her responsibilities and that the condition will continue for the reasonably foreseeable future.”

The district court may terminate parental rights if “[1] a statutory ground for termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence, [2] termination is in the best interests of the child, and [3] the county has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family.”5

A district court abuses its discretion if its findings are clearly erroneous, –61 (Minn. 2008), or if it misapplies the law

3(c) (2018); (confirming the statutory requirement for appointment of counsel).

(rejecting a parent’s argument that the county’s mental-health efforts were not reasonable when “[t]he f ocus of the county’s efforts was, for obvious reasons, mother’s profound and recurring chemical dependency” and “[t]he county’s 8 efforts were interrupted by mother’s repeated relapses