Cited by

The county argues that M.A.G.’s attendance with the RISE agency was not adequate , but e ven if M.A.G.’s attendance was questionable, lack of employment does not rise to “grave” conditions to terminate M.A.G.’s parental right s. (“Parental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons .”).

Our review of termination proceedings is informed by the understanding that courts may terminate parental rights only for “grave and weighty reasons.” d 370, 375 (Minn. 1990).

d 370, 375 (Minn. 1990).

10 D E C I S I O N We review an order terminating parental rights to determine “whether the trial court’s findings address the statutory criteria, whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence, and whether those findings are clearly erroneous.”

Thus, Minnesota courts will only terminate parental rights for “grave and weighty reasons.”

As a result, parental rights may be terminated “only for grave and weighty reasons.”

We review an order terminating parental rights to determine “whether the trial court’s findings address the statutory criteria, whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence, and whether those findings are clearly erroneous.”

(quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S. Ct. 1382, 1391 (1983)).

As a result, parental rights may be terminated “only for grave and weighty reasons.”

but we give “considerable deference to the district court’s decision to terminate parental rights,” S.E.P., d at 385.

Accordingly, “[p]arental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

Thus, “[p]arental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

As a result, parental rights may be terminated “only for grave and weighty reasons.”

D E C I S I O N “Parental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

at 733; -75 (Minn. 1990) (recognizing that district courts are in a better position to determine credibility).

As a result, parental rights may be terminated “only for grave and weighty reasons.”

-79 (Minn. 1990) (affirming district court’s denial of termination for mother incarcerated for murdering a child, based on her continuing relationship with child and amenability to se rvices while incarcerated).

The law -of-the-case doctrine provide s that a competent court’s “decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”

744 n.1 (Minn. 1994) (citations omitted); , 305 n.7 (Minn. 2008) (“The law-of-the-case doctrine is a rule of practice that once an issue is considered and adjudicated, that issue should not be reexamined in that court or any lower court throughout the case.” (quotation *832 omitted)); (noting that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply if the issue has not been litigated, or the issue has not been decided at trial or on appeal); (“The [law-of-the-case] doctrine provides that when a court de

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

Therefore, “[p]arental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

DECISION “Parental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

DECISION “Parental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

Therefore, “[p]arental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

Thus, “[p]arental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

As a result, “[p]arental rights are terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”