Cited by

Approximately 20 years ago, inln re Children of Vasquez, this court interpreted section 260C.301, subdivision 8(2), and the language in subsection 260.012(h) to authorize a district court to make a futility finding after a termination trial, even though the district court had not made a pre­ trial detennin ation that reasonable efforts were not required.

In response, the agency contends that the failure to provide services in this case is justified based on two prior opinions from this court, both of which affirmed termination of parental rights in the absence of a case plan and reunification efforts: In re Children of Vasquez , d 249, 253 (Minn. App. 2003), and In re Welfare of Udstuen , -04 (Minn. App. 1984).

“If a parent’s behavior is likely to be detrimental to the [child]’s physical or mental health or morals, the parent can be found to be palpably unfit a nd have his parental rights terminated.”

A parent is palpably unfit if their “behavior is likely to be detrimental to the children’s physical or mental health or morals.”

“If a parent’s behavior is likely to be detrimental to a child’s physical or mental health, the parent may be found to be palpably unfit.” In re Children of Vasquez

When reviewing the district court’s underlying factual findings, “this court must determine whether the district court’s findings address the statutory criteria, are supported by substantial eviden ce, and are not clearly erroneou s.” -52 (Minn. App. 2003).

In re Children of Vasquez , , 254 (Minn. App. 2003).

“Under Minnesota caselaw, im prisonment alone is not sufficient to constitute abandonment.”

“If a parent’s behavior is likely to be detrimental to the children’s physical or mental health or morals, the parent can be found palpably unfit and have his parental rights terminated.”