Cited by

Although the interests of the parent and child must be balanced, they are not “weighed equally.” In re Welfare of Udstuen

Although the interests of the parent and child must be balanced, they are not “weighed equally.” In re Welfare of Udstuen

Although the interests of the parent and child must be balanced, they are not “ weighed equally.” In re Welfare of Udstuen

Although the interests of the parent and the child must be balanced, this “does not mean that the interests of the parent and the child are weighed equally.”

Although the interests of the parent and child must be balanced, this “does not mean that the interests of the parent and the child are weighed equally.” see also In re Welfare of Child.

Although the interests of the parent and child must be balanced, this “does not mean that the interests of the parent and the child are weighed equally.”

Although the interests of the parent and child must be balanced, this “does not mean that the interests of the parent and the child are weighed equally.”

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).

In this court concluded that, in light of the child’s need for permanency, the district court did not err by ruling on a TPR petition while the father was incarcerated and by not continuing the trial until the conclusion of the father’s appeal of his criminal conviction.

he record amply supports the juvenile court’s finding that “[m]ore time will simply result in more instability for these children and unnecessarily delay permanency.” When balancing the children’s interests with those of appellant, the children’s immediate need for a stable permanent home “outweighs” appellant’s desire for more time to comply with her case plan, this record contains clear 19 and convincing support for the juvenile court’s factual determinations, and the juvenile court did not ab

15, 1997); see also In re Welfare of Stoat, 287 Minn. 501, 506-07 , (considering relationship prior to father’s incarceration and father’s desire and ability to continue relationship); (considering child’s special needs, foster mother’s ability to care for child, and father’s indifference).

This court has previously held that the failure to provide a case plan and the county’s lack of effort to reunite a parent with his child, where the incarcerated parent was in prison for battering the child, was “excusable under the circumstances.”

(allowing consideration of fact of incarceration for parental rights termination).

§ 260.221(b)(5) (1986); d at 541-42

Termination cannot be justified simply on past and present conditions, but because “the conditions existing at the time of the hearing will continue for a prolonged, inde *75 terminate period of time.”

25, 1985); -04 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).

25, 1985); -04 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).