Cited by

demonstrate the [district] court’s comprehensive consideration of the statutory criteria.”

However, the district court did not connect specific facts from the examiners’ reports to its conclusion that Alexander satisfies the requirement for commitment or explain “which facts or opinions were most persuasive [to its] ultimate decision.”

(discussing the inadequacy of the district court’s findings in the context of pl acement following a termination of parental rights).

(); d 538, 545-46 (Minn. App. 2009) (remanding because “district court’s order does not contain findings or conclusions regarding [child’s] best interests”).

P. 52.01, which states that “[r]equests for findings are not necessary for purposes of review.” 5 district court’s findings are insufficient when they merely recite or summarize testimony from witnesses “without commenting independently upon their opinions or the foundation for their opinions or the relative credibility of the various witnesses.”

-39 (Minn. 1990) (discussing the inadequacy of the district court’s findings in the context of placement following a termination of parental rights).

-70 (Minn. App. 2020) (citing this aspect of Rosenfeld in a juvenile-protection appeal); (concluding that district court’s findings of fact were deficient when the findings were “inadequate to facilitate effective appellate review, to provide insight into which facts or opinions were most persuasive of the ultimate decision, or to demonstrate the [district] court’s comprehensive cons

-39 (Minn. 1990) (discussing the inadequacy of the district court’s findings in the context of placement 11 following a termination of parental rights).

When the district court’s findings do not address the child’s best interests, they are “inadequate to facilitate effective appellate review, to provide insight into which facts or opinions were most persuasive of the ultimate decision, o r to demonstrate the court’s comprehensive consideration of the statutory criteria.” Tanghe, d at 626 (); (cautioning reviewing court against “ combing through the record to determine best interests” because such activity “ involves credibility determinations ”)

cf. Rosenfeld, d at 171-72 (affirming where the findings, as a whole, were adequate to determine what the court considered).

(noting that for sufficient appellate review, district court’s findings must provide insight into facts the court relied on in reaching its ultimate conclusion).

She cites In re Welfare of M.M., in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that, upon termination of the parental rights of a child’s only parent, there was a preference to place the child with a relative, and the party opposing placement with a relative had a burden to “make an affirmative showing that the first preferred placement would be detrimental to the child.”

She cites In re Welfare of M.M., in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that, upon te rmination of the parental rights of a child’s only parent, there was a preference to place the child with a relative, and the party opposing placement with a relative had a burden to “make an a ffirmative showing that the first preferred placement would be detrimental to the child.”

cites and argues that there remains a “strong preference” for placement with a relative.

(alterations in original) ().

The supreme court also has stated, in cases involving a termination of parental rights, that a district court’s findings of fact must “provide insight into which facts or opinions were most persuasive of the ultimate decision.” See, d 236, 239 (Minn. 1990).

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); (concluding that “the district court’s findings of fact are deficient” because “the trial court merely recited or summarized excerpted portions of testimony of several ...

As the supreme court observed in a child custody case, when the findings do not adequately address best interests, they are “inadequate to facilitate effective appellate review, to provide insight into which facts or opinions were most persuasive of the ultimate decision, or to demonstrate the court’s comprehensive consideration of the statutory criteria.”

(mentioning "golden thread” analysis when reviewing custody disposition of child after termination of parental rights); (mentioning "golden thread” analysis on appeal of termination of parental rights).

Our analysis begins with where we stated that when a child’s natural parents are unable to care for the child, there is a strong preference for awarding permanent custody of the child to a relative.