Case Title: Interest of G.T.

Citation: 2019 ND 247

Docket Number: 20190257

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 2019-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 ND ____ In the Interest of G.T., a child In the Interest of E.T., a child In the Interest of C.T., a child In the Interest of I.T., a child Lyndsey Tungseth, L.S.W., Cass County Social Services, Petitioner and Appellee v. C.J. and S.T., Respondents and Appellants Nos. 20190257, 20190258, 20190259, 20190260, 20190265, 20190266, 20190267 & 20190268 Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Scott A. Griffeth, Juvenile Referee. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Diane Davies-Luger, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief. E. Jane Sundby, West Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellant C.J.; submitted on brief. Monte L. Rogneby and Megan J. Gordon, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and appellant S.T.; submitted on brief. 1 Per Curiam. C.J., the mother, and S.T., the father, separately appeal from a juvenile court judgment terminating parental rights to four children. The mother argues the juvenile court erred by finding the causes of the deprivation were likely to continue, causing harm to the children. The father argues several findings of fact are clearly erroneous and his due process rights were violated when the court refused to grant a continuance or make other arrangements so he could attend the termination hearing. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4), and (7). Matter of Adoption of J.M.H., 1997 ND 99, ¶ 18, 564 N.W.2d 623 (“Prisoners do not have a constitutional due process right to personally appear at a proceeding for the termination of their parental rights. Prisoners’ due process rights generally are satisfied if they are represented by counsel and have an opportunity to appear by deposition or other discovery technique.”) (internal citation omitted). See In Interest of A.B., 2017 ND 178, ¶ 12, 898 N.W.2d 676. Interest of G.T., E.T., C.T., I.T. Nos. 20190257-20190260 & 20190265-20190268 Per Curiam. [¶1] C.J., the mother, and S.T., the father, separately appeal from a juvenile court judgment terminating parental rights to four children. The mother argues the juvenile court erred by finding the causes of the deprivation were likely to continue, causing harm to the children. The father argues several findings of fact are clearly erroneous and his due process rights were violated when the court refused to grant a continuance or make other arrangements so he could attend the termination hearing. [¶2] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4), and (7). Matter of Adoption of J.M.H., 1997 ND 99, ¶ 18, 564 N.W.2d 623 (“Prisoners do not have a constitutional due process right to personally appear at a proceeding for the termination of their parental rights. Prisoners’ due process rights generally are satisfied if they are represented by counsel and have an opportunity to appear by deposition or other discovery technique.”) (internal citation omitted). See In Interest of A.B., 2017 ND 178, ¶ 12, 898 N.W.2d 676. [¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jon J. Jensen Jerod E. Tufte