In re J.Z.

I dissent. The majority totally overlooks or disregards two major concerns: (1) the appropriate scope of review, and (2) the best interests of the child.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

The majority plays lip service to the appropriate “clearly erroneous” test, In re D.H., 354 N.W.2d 185 (S.D.1984), then proceeds to second guess the trial court. The majority suggests that this is a “close case” and then holds that “the evidence in support of termination was not sufficiently clear, direct, weighty, and convincing to justify the termination of the Mother’s parental rights.” These seem to me to be inconsistent…