In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W

87 Citing cases

  1. In re J. L. G.

    No. A23-0168 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2023)

    We review a district court's CHIPS determination using "a very deferential standard of review" and will not reverse absent "a clear abuse of discretion." In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 734 (Minn.App. 2009) (quotation omitted). "A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record."

  2. In re A. E.

    A17-0212 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2017)

    A district court has broad discretion when deciding child-protection matters. In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 733 (Minn. App. 2009). When an appellate court reviews "a determination whether a child is in need of protection or services, . . . [i]t should be kept in mind that a trial court . . . has the opportunity to see the parties as well as their witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their actions, and weigh the evidence in light of those factors."

  3. In re Children of H.M.S.

    No. A24-0277 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 3, 2024)

    For the district court to adjudicate a child in need of protection or services, the county must prove the existence of one of the statutory child-protection grounds under Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6 (2022), and show that the child needs protection or services as a result. In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 728 (Minn.App. 2009).

  4. In re C. D. T.

    No. A22-1095 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2023)

    We review a district court's CHIPS determination using "a very deferential standard of review." In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 734 (Minn.App. 2009). We review the district court's "factual findings for clear error."

  5. In re R. S.

    A16-1795 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2017)

    " Id. Thus, a child only meets the statutory definition of a "child in need of protection or services" under Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6 (2016), when "one of the enumerated child-protection grounds exists and the child needs protection or services as a result." In re Welfare of the Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 724-25 (Minn. App. 2009). "To be proved at trial, allegations of a petition alleging a child to be in need of protection or services must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

  6. In re S. Parent D.

    A15-1241 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2016)

    On appeal from a CHIPS determination, this court is "bound by a very deferential standard of review." In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 734 (Minn. App. 2009). Nevertheless, we must perform a "close review . . . into the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether the evidence is clear and convincing."

  7. In re Children of B. M. H.

    No. A24-0342 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2024)

    A district court has broad discretion in deciding juvenile-protection matters. In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 733 (Minn.App. 2009). A district court abuses its discretion "by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record."

  8. In re Welfare of the Children of G. M.

    A17-0219 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2017)

    A district court has broad discretion in child-protection matters. In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 733 (Minn. App. 2009). "Findings in a CHIPS proceeding will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence."

  9. In re Welfare of C. L. F.

    A16-1694 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2017)

    A child only meets "the statutory definition of a child in need of protection or services under [Minn. Stat. §] 260C.007, [subd.] 6, [if] one of the enumerated child-protection grounds exists and the child needs protection or services as a result." In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 732 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6 (2016). Given the presumption of fitness, allegations in a CHIPS petition "must be proved by clear and convincing evidence."

  10. In re L.F.

    A11-2174 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2012)

    DECISIONThis court is bound by a "very deferential standard of review" of factual findings in CHIPS determinations, In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., 767 N.W.2d 723, 734 (Minn. App. 2009), and will not reverse such findings unless they are "clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence," In re Welfare of B.A.B., 572 N.W.2d 776, 778 (Minn. App. 1998). "A finding is clearly erroneous if it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole."