In that case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that active efforts were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt where a father’s proposal to place his child permanently with his Native American brother and sister-in-law was not considered by the trial court before it terminated his parental rights. However, the Minnesota court distinguished M.S.S. in In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 170 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005), noting that it reversed and remanded the termination of parental rights in M.S.S. "where the proposed custodians were not identified until after the trial started, but were specific members of the child’s tribe who were licensed foster parents and recommended to be custodians by the child’s tribe. " (Emphasis added).
See State, Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address issue absent adequate briefing); In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 166 (Minn. App. 2005) (citing this aspect of Wintz in TPR appeal). II.
See, e.g., In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 167 (Minn. App. 2005) (using a pre-statutory definition of "qualified expert witness"). Father argues that the district court should have found the QEW's testimony not credible because the QEW was unfamiliar with the case and gave incorrect information about the facts.
To obtain relief on appeal, a party must show both error by the district court and that the (alleged) error prejudiced the complaining party. Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975); see In re Welfare of Child. of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 166 (Minn.App. 2005) (applying Midway Ctr. Assocs., on appeal in a juvenile protection matter). These requirements apply to due-process claims in juvenile protection matters.
State, Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address an issue absent adequate briefing); In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 166 (Minn. App. 2005) (applying this aspect of Wintz in a TPR appeal), review dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005).
1982) (deeming arguments forfeited on appeal that are unsupported by facts in record and contain inadequate citation to relevant legal authority); see also State, Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address an issue absent adequate briefing); In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 166 (Minn. App. 2005) (citing this aspect of Wintz in a termination of parental rights appeal). a child has experienced egregious harm in the parent's care which is of a nature, duration, or chronicity that indicates a lack of regard for the child's well-being, such that a reasonable person would believe it contrary to the best interest of the child or of any child to be in the parent's care.
We note that it is for the district court to assess whether admitting evidence will be helpful to the district court in making its decision, and that the decision to admit evidence is discretionary with the district court. In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 172 (Minn. App. 2005). Moreover, opining on whether or not maintaining a parental relationship is in a child's best interest is precisely the information needed by the court to address a child's best interest and, in a permanency matter, it is precisely the role of the GAL to provide this information.
To obtain relief on appeal, an appellant must show both error by the district court and prejudice arising from that error. Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 306 Minn. 352, 356, 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (1975); see In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 166 (Minn. App. 2005) (citing this aspect of Midway in a termination of rights appeal). Thus, the question here becomes whether the district court's unconventional use of "default" prejudiced appellant.
Evidentiary rulings are within the district court's discretion, and we will not reverse a ruling unless there is an abuse of that discretion and a showing of prejudice. In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 172 (Minn. App. 2005); see also Pekarek v. Wilking, 380 N.W.2d 161, 163 (Minn. App. 1986) (reviewing district court determination regarding parties' stipulation for abuse of discretion). As a preliminary matter, the county claims that L.M.P. is barred from raising this issue on appeal because she did not object to the district court's receipt of the "Stipulated Facts" document at trial and did not file a post-trial motion.
Id. at subd. 6(b); see also In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 166-67 (Minn. App. 2005). At trial, the county presented the testimony of Agnes Cavanaugh, whom the Spirit Lake Indian Nation had designated as a qualified expert witness.