Because any harm inflicted upon appellant by section 260C.301, subd. Appellant's motion to vacate was denied. At the hearing on the motion to vacate, appellant testified that when deciding whether to consent to the termination of her parental rights, she was operating under a fear that if she unsuccessfully challenged the termination of her parental rights under Minn. Stat. Therefore, appellant testified that she felt compelled to consent to the termination of her parental rights. I O N I. Respondent argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction over appellant's motion to vacate the order terminating appellant's parental rights.
Jurisdiction is a question of law, which a reviewing court decides de novo.
Contrary to respondent's assertions, this court and the Minnesota Supreme Court have considered cases where the appellant is appealing from a motion to vacate a TPR order. Furthermore, appellant's motion to vacate was timely because it was brought within six weeks of the TPR order. See Minn. R. Civ. Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction to hear appellant's motion to vacate the TPR order. Appellant is appealing from the denial of a motion to vacate a termination of parental rights, claiming that Minn. Stat.