Further contributing to permanency delays was that the burden of proof criteria under 260C.301 to meet the requirements to terminate parental rights and move towards permanency for the subject child and her siblings had not been met when the case came into the second county of jurisdiction.  The second county wanted to give the family an opportunity to work the case plan towards reunification and wanted to complete a case plan with the subject child's father as this had not been previously done in the first county of jurisdiction.

The agency's need to balance the multiple competing priorities of relative placement, sibling preservation, the 10 Best Interests Factors defined in MN State Statute 260C.212 subd. 2 (b), and permanency timelines also contributed to the delays in achieving permanency.