Cited by

“[T]he best interests of a child are not served by delay that precludes the establishment of parental bonds with the child by either the natural parent or adoptive parents within the foreseeable future.”

An appellate court “exercises great caution in termination proceedings, finding such action proper only when the evidence clearly mandates such a result.”

-93 (Minn. 1996) (stating that “reasonable efforts” did not require services that were unlikely to “bring about lasting parental adjustment enabling the placement of [the child] with [the parent] within a reasonable period of time”).

8 (2014); (making a similar observation).

See S.E.P., d at 386-87 (affirming termination of parental rights for failure to correct conditions when parent failed to provide “adequate safe and stable housing” or “develop necessary parenting skills,” even though children were not in out-of-home placement); (noting that for termination based on palpable unfitness to parent, the parent’s inability “for the reasonably foreseeable future to meet the ongoing physical, mental, and emotional needs of” the child supported termination).

-93 (Minn. 1996) (stating that “reasonable efforts” did not 7 require services that were unlikely to “bring about lasting parental adjustment enabling the placement of [the child] with [the parent] within a reasonable period of time”).2 The district court fou

-94 (Minn. 1996) (discussing parent’s history of mental illness as it relates to the parent’s current and future ability to parent).

“[T]he best interests of a child are not served by delay that precludes the establishment of parental bonds with the child by either the natural parent or adoptive parents within the foreseeable future.”

ite the parent and child, which is not an issue here; reversed this court’s decision and reinstated the district court decision terminating the rights of a parent who, like appellant, had not shown that the conditions leading to the out-of-home placement had been corrected and had not complied with the case plan; affirmed a termination of the rights of a parent on grounds of palpable unfitness where the parent, like appellant, would be unable to care for or meet the needs of the child for the re

An appellate court “exercises great caution in termination proceedings, finding such action proper only when the evidence clearly mandates such a result.”

Whether a county has provided reasonable efforts depends on the problems presented, including the length of time the county was involved and the quality of the effort given, In re Welfare of H.K., 7 review denied (Minn. July 6, 1990).

An appellate court “exercises great caution in termination proceedings, finding such action proper only when the evidence clearly mandates such a result.”

An appellate court “exercises great caution in termination proceedings, finding such action proper only when the evidence clearly mandates such a result.”

“When considering termination of parental rights, the court relies not primarily on past history, but to a great extent upon the projected permanency of the parent’s inability to care for his or her child.” (quotations omitted).

When considering petitions to terminate parental rights, a district court should rely “ ‘not primarily on past history, but to a great extent upon the projected permanency of the parent’s inability to care for his or her child.’ ” () (quotation omitted).

An appellate court “exercises great caution in termination proceedings, finding such ac *410 tion proper only when the evidence clearly mandates such a result.”

We have said that “[w]hen these statutory provisions are considered together with the inherent difficulty of permitting the agency seeking termination also to deny rehabilitative services, it is clear that the provision of reasonable efforts must be evaluated by the court in every case.”