Cited by

from a district court’s order terminating parental rights, appellate courts “closely inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether it was clear and convincing,” S.E.P., d at 385, and “[c]onsiderable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

from a district court’s termination of parental rights, appellate courts “closely inquire into the suffi ciency of the evidence to de termine whether it was clear and convincing,” S.E.P., d at 385, and “[c]onsiderable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.” (Mi nn.

“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

We give “[c]onsiderable deference” to th e district court’s decision to terminate parental rights “because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

if the parent has actually deserted the child and has an intention to forsake the duties of parenthood”) (quotation omitted); (stating, in a termination-of-parental-rights appeal, that abandonment was established where father failed to avail himself of rights to child, he lp with child-rearing expenses, or contact the child because absence was intentional rather “than due to misfortune and misconduct alone”) (quotation

While we will “closely inquire” into the sufficiency of the evidence, we also defer to the district court, which “is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

8 Minn. Stat. § 260C.301 (2020); -97 (Minn. 1996).

We give considerable deference to the district court’s credibility determinations because “a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because 18 a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

However, the district court is “in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

(“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”).

On appeal, “[c] onsiderable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

“To involuntarily terminate parental rights, the district court must find that at least one of the eight statutory conditions for termination exist[s].” Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd.

“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

D E C I S I O N “To involuntarily terminate parental rights, the district cour t must find that at least one of the eight statutory conditions for termination exist[s].”

d 393, 396 (Minn. 1996) (“[A] district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”); see also In re Welfare of J.H.

On appeal, “[c]onsiderable deference is due to the district court’s decisi on because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

On review, “[c]onsiderable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to a ssess the credibility of witnesses.”

1(b) (2018); (“To involuntarily terminate parental rights, the district court must find that at least one of the eight statutory conditions for termination exist.”).

“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

On appeal, “[c]onsiderable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

remain the paramount consideration in every termination case.” d 393, 397 (Minn. 1996) (quotation omitted); see also M.D.O., d at 375.

(“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”).

(“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s [TPR] decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”).

Constans v. Comm’r of Pub.

“Considerable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

d 393, 396 (Minn. 1996).

396 (Minn. 1996) ("Considerable deference is due to the district court's decision [to terminate parental rights] because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses."); see also In re the Welfare of J.H.

We give “considerable deference” to the district court’s decision in terminating parental rights “because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

(stating that it is not the appellate court’s function to reweigh evidence, find facts, or as sess credibility); (giving the district court’s credibility determinations deference in the juvenile protection context).

(stating that this court gives 11 considerable deference to the district court’s decision to terminate a person’s parental rights because the “district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses”).

A reviewing court defers to the district court’s credibility determinations because it is in a “superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

And “[c]onsiderable deference is due to the district court’s decision because a district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.”

We will give considerable defere nce to the district court’s decision to terminate a person’s parental rights because the “district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.” 396 (Minn. 1996).