Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Welfare of MH, 595 N.W.2d 223.
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: B. L. and R. O. S. a/k/a R. … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: M. R. M. P., Mother Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. A. B. and A. D. C. V., …
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
There is a “presumption that [the] natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his child and that it is ordinarily in the best interest of a child to be in the custody of his natural parent.” d 223, 227 (Minn. App. 1999) (quotation omitted).
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child(ren) of: A. M. B. and M. J. B., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. F. P., Parent
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 223, 229 (Minn. App. 1999) (noting that, “[e]ven in the context of termination of parental rights, failure to raise constitutional issues in the district court precludes the issues from being raised on appeal”); In re Welfare of C.L.L ., 3 (refusing to consider constitutional issue raise
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: B. K. (n/k/a B. K.), M. K. and …
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“Only one [statutory] criterion needs to be proven to support termination.”).
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: F.I.S., D.S.H., Sr., T.C.H., and A.L.F., Parents (A17-0230), …
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[M]aking only minimal progress supports the conclusion that the present conditions will continue for 10 a prolonged, indeterminate period and that termination is proper.”
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. S. W. and J. L. W., Parents
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Only one [statutory] criterion needs to be proven to support termination.”
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. M. R. and T. P. D., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
Distinguished
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: C. M. R. and T. P. D., Parents
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
For this argument, appellant relies on
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: I. M. W. and R. J. M., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: I. M. W. and R. J. M., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: E. M. U. and W. H. H., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: E. M. U. and W. H. H., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. L. V. and B. F., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: T. L. V. and B. F., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. W. N. and J. L. P., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. W. N. and J. L. P., Parents
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
–29 (Minn. App. 1999) (affirming district court’s decision not to terminate mother’s parental rights even though child needed therapy, was hesitant to see mother, and termination would be in child’s best interest).
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. M. A. and M. R. H., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: K. M. A. and M. R. H., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- In re the Welfare of the Children of B.M. 845 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
In re the Welfare of the Children of B.M.
845 N.W.2d 558
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The county’s burden is “subject to the presumption that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his child and that it is ordinarily in the best interest of a child to be in the custody of his natural parent.” (quotation omitted).
- In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T.
814 N.W.2d 76
Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(“Only one [statutory] criterion needs to be proven to support termination.”).
- In Re the Welfare of the Children of D.F. 752 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-
In Re the Welfare of the Children of D.F.
752 N.W.2d 88
Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-11 (Minn.2003) (permitting review of “substantive questions of law” not raised in posttrial motions but properly raised during trial).