Cited by

(quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Juv.

“In reviewing termination of parental rights, we determine whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the district court’s decision, given that the burden of proof in the district court is clear and convincing evidence.” (quotation omitted); s ee also Minn. R. Juv.

See, e.g., T.A.A., d at 710; rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 1991).

review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991).

107 (Minn. App. 1996) (quotation omitted).

We will not set aside factual findings unless review of the entire record leaves us with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

We will not set aside factual 10 findings unless “review of the entire record leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

A finding is clearly erroneous only if the appellate court is left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” ().

We will not set aside factual findings unless a review of the entire record leaves us with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

The “district court’s individual fact findings will not be set aside unless our review of the entire record leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

The “district court’s individual fact findings will not be set aside unless our review of the entire record leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

The “district court’s individual fact findings will not be set aside unless our review of the entire record leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

We will not set aside a finding “unless our review of the entire record leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” d 104, 107 (Minn. App. 1996) (quotation omitted).

d 104, 110 (Minn. App. 1996) (“An order for the termination of parental rights must explain the district court’s rationale for concluding why the termination is in the best interests of the children.”) But the district court describes the “best interest” factors throughout the TPR order, noting that: (1) J.J.

In the appealing parent questioned the sufficiency of revocation findings but only insofar as they might support a conclusion that termination currently served the best interests of the child.

Under the “clearly erroneous” portion of this court’s review of the district court’s findings, a district court’s individual fact-findings will not be set aside unless the review of the entire record leaves the court “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” ().