Cited by

We apply a clear -error standard of review to a district court’s findings of historical fact, and an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s ultimate finding as to whether a statutory basis for terminating parental rights is present , review denied (Minn. Jan.

A natural parent is presumptively a “fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his or her child,” and “[o]rdinarily, it is in the best interest of a child to be in the custody of his or her natural parents.”

There is a “presumption that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his or her child.”

(concluding that mother’s love for the child and desire to regain custody were not sufficient where she failed to demonstrate requisite parenting skills).

D E C I S I O N A natural parent is presumptively a “fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his or her child,” and “[o]rdinarily, it is in the best interest of a child to be in the custody of his or her natural parents.”

if the parent’s rights to another child have been involuntarily terminated, a presumpti on arises that the parent is palpably unfit to be a party to the parent -child relationship.

(“There is perhaps no more grave matter that comes before the court than the termination of a parent’s relationship with a child.”).

There is a “presumption that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his or her child.”

“Ordinarily, it is in the best interest of a child to be in the custody of his or her natural parents.” d 643, 647 (Minn. 1995).

There is a “presumption that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of [their] child.”

DECISION There is a “presumption that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his or her child.”

d 643, 647 (Minn. 1995).

DECISION I. There is a “presumption that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his or her child.”

This includes those factors addressed by the court that mother has not challenged in this appeal.2 -49 (Minn. 1995) (affirming a determination that a child was neglected and in foster care despite district court’s failure to specifically refer to each statutory fact when the district court’s detailed findings of fact provide clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination.)

(concluding that mother’s love for child and desire to regain custody were not sufficient to support reunification where she failed to demonstrate requisite parenting skills); (concluding that despite appellant’s love for and bond

It is typically presumed “that a natural parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his or her child.”

A district court stands in a superior position to assess the 4 credibility of witnesses, and an appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings.

3 Appellant also appears to argue that: (1) a parent is presumptively fit to care for that parent’s children, see, 4 DECISION 1.

(concluding that mother’s love for child and desire to regain custody were not sufficient where she failed to demonstrate requisite parenting skills); A.J.C., d at 622 (concluding that despite *93 appellant’s love for and bond with children, her inability to comply with parental duties due to

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).