Cited by

is in the best interests of the child.” -26 (Minn. App. 2003) (recognizing that “a child’s best interests may preclude terminating parental rights” even when a statutory basis for termination exists (quotation omitted)).

“The district court must also determine that, at the time of termination, the parent is not presently able and willing to as sume [those] responsibilities and that the condition will continue for the reasonably foreseeable future.” (instructing the district court to “address conditions that exist at the time of the hearing”).

To determine a child’s best interests, the district court must balance “(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.” In re Welfare of 10 Child of A.M.C., see Minn. R. Juv.

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.”

“[W]hat constitutes ‘reasonable efforts’ depends on the facts of each case.” J.H., d at 601 ().

The court weighed these considerations and determined that the child’s “needs for a sober home with a mentally healthy p arent, stability, and safety outweigh the interest in preserving the parent-child relationship.” (stating that the 18 district court’s findings as to “mother’s chemical-dependency issues, her unstable housing situation, and the fact that [the child] has been successful while in foster care[,]” were valid considerations when assessing the best-interests factors).

(holding that a county’s efforts were reasonable when viewed in the context of father’s “lack of effort to take advantage of services”).

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

A district court must weigh three factors when conducting a best-interests analysis: “(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.” 7 (Minn. App. 2018) (quotation omitted).

When, as here, reasonable efforts were required, “the petitioner must show clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts were made to reunite the parent with the child.”

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

hildren’s needs over her own,” and is “unable to manage her own mental health needs” and that “this has rendered Mother unable to meet the children’s mental education, developmental, and safety needs.” “We 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.”

“Although a single statutory ground is sufficient to terminate parental rights,” the district court here identified three, each with ample support in the record.

A district court abuses its discretion when it “improperly applies the law.”

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.”

When evaluating the best interests of a child in a TPR proceeding, the district court must consider “(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.

“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.” (instructing district court to “address conditions that exist at the time of the hearing”).

(concluding that the county’s efforts, “although imperfect, were reasonable under the circumstances” as “efforts that the county made or 10 attempted were disrupted by father’s repeated periods of incarceration”).

d 648, 655 -57 (Minn. App. 2018) (reviewing “reasonable efforts” as fact- dependent).

To evaluate the best interests of a child in a proceeding to terminate parental rights, a district court must consider “(1) the child’s interests in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interests in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interests of the child.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Juv.

(concluding that C/D-17 reversal would not advance child’s best interests by further delaying “safe and permanent placement”).

A best-interests analysis requires consideration of 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 interest of the child.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Juv.

We “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.”

7 (2022); (stating that the child’s “paramount best interests .

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.”

(“What constitutes reasonable efforts depends on the facts of each case.” (quotation omitted)).

2 2 We note that neither mother nor father identif ies any specific factual finding s that they believe w ere clearly erroneous.

d 648, 663 (Minn. App. 2018).