| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-0778In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: J.T.S.W., M.D.K. and R.R.S., III, Parents. KLAPHAKE, Judge R.S.S. appeals from a district court order terminating his parental rights to M.K., who was born on June 1, 2006. The district court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate his parental rights under three statutory grounds, Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2), (5), and (8) (2006). Because the record includes clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(2), and because termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm. A07-0883 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.M.M.-B., A.F.W., L.L.S., Sr., M.J.L., J.E.K. and M.A.J., Parents. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant mother challenges the district court’s termination of her parental rights, arguing that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence supporting the bases for termination invoked by the district court and the finding that termination is in the children’s best interests. We affirm. A07-586 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S.-L. C. a/k/a R., Parent. ROSS, Judge This appeal concerns the termination of S.-L.C.’s parental rights to her two youngest children. S.-L.C. argues that her due process rights were violated because she had not been appointed an attorney until immediately before the termination trial. She also contends that the district court’s findings were not supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the court therefore had no basis to conclude that she failed to comply with the duties imposed by the parent-child relationship, that she failed to correct the conditions leading to the children’s out-of-home placement, or that the children were neglected and in foster care. Because S.-L.C.’s claim that she was not appointed an attorney until just before trial is factually meritless, and because the record supports the district court’s findings that S.-L.C. failed to comply with her parental duties and that termination is in the children’s best interests, we affirm the district court’s order terminating S.-L.C.’s parental rights. A07-0341 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.J. and K.I.J., Parents. LANSING, Judge In this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, LJ challenges the adequacy of the evidence to support the three grounds on which the district court terminated her parental rights to two of her three children: failure to abide by the duties of the parent-child relationship, failure to correct conditions leading to out-of-home placement, and the children are neglected and in foster care. Because the facts in the record provide a sufficient basis to find by clear and convincing evidence that three statutory grounds for termination exist, that the county made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunite the family, and that termination is in the best interests of the children, we affirm. A07-0263 County of Freeborn, Respondent, vs. Dennis A. Brue, et al., Appellants. HARTEN, Judge Appellants, property owners, challenge the judgments ordering them to allow respondent Freeborn County to remove items from their property to bring it into conformity with respondent’s ordinances. A06-2146 Conrad J. Pedersen, Relator, vs. Omni Air International Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WORKE, Judge Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to employment misconduct. Because we conclude that the ULJ was justified in determining that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm. A06-1823 Becky A. Cole, Relator, vs. Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WORKE, Judge Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that she had good reason to quit caused by the employer. We affirm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By visiting this page or clicking the "submit" button above, you agree that you have read and accept this "disclaimer". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright ©
Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights
Reserved. Minnesota Law Firm representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims. Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance. |
