A23-1143 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.L.G. and H.W.G., Parents
Case Details
- Status
- Unpublished
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal from district court termination of parental rights decision; appellate court affirmed lower court ruling
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appellate court affirmed the district court's termination of parental rights, rejecting parents' arguments that the statutory bases for termination were unsupported and that the county failed to make reasonable reunification efforts.
Excerpt
Judge Appellants, mother and father, challenge the termination of their parental rights, arguing that the record does not support the district court's determination that multiple statutory bases for termination were proved at trial and that the county made reasonable efforts to reunite the family. Appellants also argue that the district court's findings regarding the children's best interests are inadequate and lack record support. We affirm.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that his conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not have a substantial adverse effect on respondent that was objectively reasonable. We affirm.
In this dispute related to a harassment restraining order (HRO), pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Because the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over appellant, we affirm.
In this appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen a harassment-restraining-order (HRO) proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Because the district court acted within its discretion by denying his motion to reopen, we affirm.
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a former romantic partner's petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO) against him. Because the district court did not clearly err in its findings and did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were reasonable grounds to believe that appellant's behavior constituted harassment, we affirm.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.