the supreme court discharged the writ of certiorari because “the pending appellate proceeding has become moot.” Id. Appellant acknowledges that Carlton did not expressly or impliedly address the abatement doctrine. Appellant essentially requests that we not only adopt the abatement doctri nsequences flowing from the termination order. Moreover, appellant’s right to pursue the appeal has not been jeopardized. A final termination order is therefore fundamentally different from a criminal conviction. In light of the absence of authority for abatement in Minnesota, we decline to adopt or apply the abatement doctrine in this case. As the common law of Minnesota does not recognize the abatement doctrine, these concerns are best left to the legislature. Accord Bevel, 717 S.E.2d at 794-95 (<HOLDING>); see also In re Tmsteeship of Trust of
recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties holding that when the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed that the legislature is aware of existing statutes recognizing doctrine recognizing that legislature is best forum for advancing abatement doctrine recognizing that the court is not the appropriate forum for initial factfinding