Matter of Welfare of Maas

31 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Welfare of the Child of T.P

    No. A07-16 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 31, 2007)

    Minnesota courts have addressed termination-of-parental-rights cases similar to the instant case. See P.R.L., 622 N.W.2d 538; In re Welfare of A.L.F., 579 N.W.2d 152 (Minn.App. 1998); In re Welfare of Maas, 355 N.W.2d 480 (Minn.App. 1984). In P.R.L., the Minnesota Supreme Court focused on the mother's ongoing relationship with a man who had physically abused her children. 622 N.W.2d at 540.

  2. In Matter of the Welfare of P.G.R

    No. C7-01-396 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 18, 2001)

    The existence of a single statutory ground is sufficient to support a termination. In re Welfare of Maas, 355 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn.App. 1984). 1. The district court terminated mother's parental rights under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4) (2000), which permits termination of parental rights if the court finds

  3. In Matter of the Welfare of L. E

    No. C8-99-1183 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 1999)

    The existence of a single statutory ground is sufficient to support a termination of parental rights. In re Welfare of Maas, 355 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn.App. 1984). If one or more of the statutory criteria is met, in making its determination the court must give paramount consideration to the child's best interests. Minn. Stat. § 260.221, subd. 4 (1998); M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d at 378.

  4. Matter of Welfare of J.L.L

    396 N.W.2d 647 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that termination was proper when parent was unable to care for children appropriately, even when parent took recent steps to improve and had desire to improve

    A minimal improvement is not enough to overcome the conclusion that appellant's past problems make his future performance as a parent uncertain. In re the Welfare of Maas, 355 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). The trial court based its findings on the assumption that appellant would be able to demonstrate appropriate patenting skills at some point in the future.

  5. PL v. Johnson County Department of Public Assistance & Social Services

    761 P.2d 985 (Wyo. 1988)   Cited 6 times

    opa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-4118/JD-529, 134 Ariz. 407, 656 P.2d 1268 (1982); Wood v. State, 248 Ark. 109, 450 S.W.2d 537 (1970); In Re Amos L., 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 177 Cal.Rptr. 783 (1981); In Re Biggs, 17 Cal.App.3d 337, 94 Cal.Rptr. 519 (1971); In Re Corrigan, 134 Cal.App.2d 751, 286 P.2d 32 (1955); In Re Halamuda, 85 Cal.App.2d 219, 192 P.2d 781 (1948); People in Interest of C.R. v. E.L., 38 Colo. App. 252, 557 P.2d 1225 (1976); In Interest of D.E.N., 504 So.2d 514 (Fla.App. 1987); Re Interest of R.A.L., 440 So.2d 473 (Fla.App. 1983); Dornburg v. McKellar, 204 Ga. 189, 48 S.E.2d 820 (1948); Interest of Castro, 102 Idaho 218, 628 P.2d 1052 (1981); In Interest of J.R., 130 Ill. App.3d 6, 85 Ill.Dec. 410, 473 N.E.2d 1009 (1985); In Interest of Brown, 86 Ill.2d 147, 56 Ill.Dec. 4, 427 N.E.2d 84 (1981); In Interest of Dodge, 8 Kan. App. 2d 259, 655 P.2d 135 (1982); Dean v. Mizell, 159 La. 975, 106 So. 534 (1925); Matter of Rinesmith, 144 Mich. App. 475, 376 N.W.2d 139 (1985); Matter of Welfare of Maas, 355 N.W.2d 480 (Minn.App. 1984); In Re Interest of Goodon, 208 Neb. 256, 303 N.W.2d 278 (1981); Matter of Alyne E., 113 Misc.2d 307, 448 N.Y.S.2d 984 (1982); In Re J.Z., 190 N.W.2d 27 (N.D. 1971); Matter of R., 62 Or. App. 288, 659 P.2d 1027 (1983); Matter of D.A.B., 313 N.W.2d 787 (S.D. 1981); Matter of A.I., 289 N.W.2d 247 (S.D. 1980); and A. Haralambie, Handling Child Custody Cases § 13.08 at 71 (1983 Supp. 1987). See also In Re S., 66 Misc.2d 683, 322 N.Y.S.2d 170 (1971) for the proposition that res ipsa loquitur can apply in the child abuse situation to help determine who inflicted the injuries.

  6. In re Welfare of B. C.

    A17-0972 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2017)

    "[A]n admission that [a mother's] boyfriend had physically abused the child as well as [the mother's] continued defense of her boyfriend's actions . . . coupled with the uncertainty of improvement in the future . . . showed a pattern of behavior which rendered appellant unfit as a parent and established that the prospects for substantial improvement in the future were not good." Matter of Welfare of Maas, 355 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 1984). The same situation is present here. Evidence from the family's case manager (C.M.) indicated that appellant's boyfriend, S.L.W., abused the children and that appellant continued to defend him and have a relationship with him.

  7. In re Welfare of the Children of D. R. L.

    A16-2065 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2017)

    Considering mother's long history of struggling with chemical dependency, even after C.L. was removed from her custody, the district court's determination that mother had not rehabilitated herself and failed to correct the conditions that led to the out of home placement was not an abuse of discretion. See In re Welfare of Maas, 355 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 1984) (affirming that mother's substantial compliance with court-ordered parenting sessions, psychological treatment, and sobriety were insufficient to avoid termination given her negative parenting history and poor prognosis for long-term improvement). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a statutory ground for termination exists.

  8. In re I. M. A.

    A15-1752 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2016)

    Although case-plan compliance is important, "[a] parent's substantial compliance with a case plan may not be enough to avoid termination of parental rights when the record contains clear and convincing evidence supporting termination." J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d at 89; see also In re Welfare of Maas, 355 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 1984) (affirming that mother's substantial compliance with court-ordered parenting sessions, psychological treatment, and sobriety were insufficient to avoid termination given her negative track record and poor prognosis for long-term improvement). "The critical issue is not whether the parent formally complied with the case plan, but rather whether the parent is presently able to assume the responsibilities of caring for the child." J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d at 89 (citing In re Welfare of J.L.L., 396 N.W.2d 647, 651 (Minn. App. 1986)).

  9. In re J. B. T.

    A14-0960 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2014)

    Minnesota law provides that a parent may comply with a case plan but nevertheless fail to correct conditions leading to out-of-home placement. In re Welfare of Child of J.K.T., 814 N.W.2d 76, 89 (Minn. App. 2012); see In re Welfare of Maas, 355 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 1984) (affirming that mother's substantial compliance with court-ordered parenting sessions, psychological treatment, and sobriety were insufficient to avoid termination given her negative parenting history and poor prognosis for long-term improvement). The critical issue is not whether the parent formally complied with the case plan, but rather whether the parent is presently able to assume the responsibilities of caring for the child.

  10. In re J.S.

    A14-0158 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 14, 2014)

    The law did not require the district court to rely on progress made a few weeks before the termination trial. See In re Welfare of J.L.L., 396 N.W.2d 647, 651, 653 (Minn. App. 1986) (concluding that "minimal" recent progress "a few weeks before the termination [trial]" was insufficient to avoid termination); In re Welfare of Maas, 355 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 1984) (noting that "appellant had made some improvement in the . . . month" preceding the hearing but affirming the trial court's termination of appellant's parental rights). We agree with M.S. that his revocation of consent to voluntary termination has no procedural significance before a court accepts the consent and orders termination.