Walker, 287 N.W.2d 642, 643-44 (Minn.1979) (addressing subdivision 1(b)(2) in light of parent’s failure, in and out of prison, “to meet his parental obligations”); In re Welfare of B.C., 356 N.W.2d 328, 332 (Minn.App.1984) (discussing nature and duration of specific conditions that rendered parent palpably unfit, when parent was incarcerated for having murdered another of her children). Second, incarceration is a relevant but not conclusive fact that bears on the application of the statutory grounds at issue. In re Welfare of Children of R.W., 678 N.W.2d 49, 57 (Minn.2004) (affirming termination under subdivision 1(b)(8), inter alia, because efforts made to become a viable parent while in prison would have been insufficient whether he was in prison or not); Vasquez, 658 N.W.2d at 253 (<HOLDING>). Lastly, courts necessarily consider factors
holding under subdivision 1b5 that incarceration was relevant but not dispositive of countys duty to provide reasonable services holding that a motion to intervene is not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party holding that the public duty doctrine applied to the countys animal control departments holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive holding that where a contract for legal services fails to expressly provide for the amount of the fee a reasonable fee is implied