Cited by

d 247, 249 (Minn. App. 2003).

d 247, 249 (Minn. App. 2003).

a. Standard of review A natural parent is generally “ presumed to be fit and suitable to be entrusted with the care of his or her child.”

Generally, “the natural parent is presumed to be fit and suitable to be entrusted with the care of his or her child.” In re 6 Welfare of D.L.R.D.

Clear and Convincing Evidenc e Supports the District Court’s Determination that a Statutory Basis Exists to Involuntarily Terminate Mother’s Parental Rights “Typically, the natural parent is presumed to be fit and suitable to be entrusted with the care of his or her child.”

(“Upon a district court’s determination that a person’s parental rights to another child previously have been termi nated involuntarily, reasonable efforts for rehabilitation and reunification are not required.”); see also Minn. Stat. § 260.012(a)(2) (2018).

-97 (Minn. 1996).3 On appeal, this court determines “whether the district court’s findings address the statutory criteria and whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).

d 247, 251 (Minn. 2003); -55 (Minn. App. 2007) (concluding that the parent did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding of parental fitness where the parent attended such classes but struggled to feed the child and read the child’s cues).

-52 (Minn. App. 2003) (rejecting parent’s argument that passivity in interacting with agency failed to support finding that termination of parental rights was in child’s best interests when findings showed parent’s conduct included continuing problems improving her parenting skills, mental health and drug abuse

–52 (Minn. App. 2003) (affirming termination of parental rights based on parent’s “continuing problems with improving her parenting skills, her mental health and drug abuse, and her other substantial personal issues”); see also S.Z., d at 894 (affirming termination of parental rights based on parent’s

-52 (Minn. App. 2003) 13 (holding that district court’s extensive factual findings, which were supported by substantial evidence, provided sufficient justification for its best-interests determination).