LP1: A Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) was not filed by county attorney (CA) under the predatory offender statute or maltreatment determined egregious harm statute although child protection (CP) staff had multiple consults with the CA throughout the life of the case regarding child safety and best interest factors.  CP Staff drafted a petition and provided it to the CA, describing the circumstances which CP perceived to meet the TPR criteria, as CP perceived they were implementing and completing the required tasks based on their interpretation of the predatory offender and egregious harm guidance, stemming from MN laws. 
 
There was no legal basis under compelling reasons as the crime and egregious harm occurred in the past, and the child was presumed safe in real time. There was no present imminent harm or imminent danger to the child, therefore the CA did not prioritize filing for TPR. There was also a perception that the public places higher preference on criminal case outcomes over TPR cases, and the criminal proceedings had not been completed at the time CP drafted a petition for TPR. The CA also prioritized the criminal case proceedings over filing for TPR, as using the result of the criminal case to support meeting criteria for TPR is common practice for county attorneys.