Legal Opinion
In re P.T.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 4, 2003No. C5-02-1508PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUDSON, Judge.
Appellants’ parental rights to their first four children were involuntarily terminated. Appellants now challenge the involuntary termination of their parental rights to their fifth child, M.T. Minn.Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(4) (2002), creates a presumption of palpable unfitness to be a party to the parent-and-child relationship where parental rights to another child have been previously involuntarily terminated. In these circumstances, there is no requirement that reasonable efforts be made to rehabilitate and reunify the parents prior to a termination of parental…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Wisconsin v. YoderSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Meyer v. NebraskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Moore v. City of East ClevelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- In Re HaggertySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Matter of BlilieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF R.D.L. and J.W., ParentsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- In re the Welfare of J.R.B.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- In Re the Welfare of the Child of W.L.P.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- In Re the Welfare of the Children of B.J.B.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
- In Re PTCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.