Case Title: Interest of C.G.

Citation: 2021 ND 113

Docket Number: 20210132, 20210133

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 2021-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2021 ND 113 In the Interest of C.G., a child Stephanie Morse, L.M.S.W., Buffalo Bridges Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. C.G., child; Respondent and R.M., father; B.G., mother; Respondents and Appellants No. 20210132 In the Interest of K.K., a child Stephanie Morse, L.M.S.W., Buffalo Bridges Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. K.K., child; B.K., father; Respondents and B.G., mother; Respondent and Appellant No. 20210133 Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Barnes County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Jay A. Schmitz, Judge. AFFIRMED. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JUNE 24, 2021 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Per Curiam. Tonya Duffy, State’s Attorney, Valley City, N.D., for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief. Ashley K. Schell, Williston, N.D., for respondent and appellant B.G.; submitted on brief. Leah R. Carlson, West Fargo, N.D., for respondent and appellant R.M.; submitted on brief. 1 Interest of C.G. & Interest of K.K. Nos. 20210132 & 20210133 Per Curiam. [¶1] B.G. and R.M. appeal from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to C.G. and K.K. B.G. is C.G.’s and K.K.’s mother. R.M. is C.G.’s father. After hearings in February and March 2021, the juvenile court found the children were deprived, the deprivation was likely to continue, and the children had been in foster care for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights. N.D.C.C. §§ 27-20-44(1)(c)(1) and (2). The court also found that R.M. abandoned C.G. N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(1)(a). The court terminated B.G.’s and R.M.’s parental rights. [¶2] On appeal, B.G. and R.M. argue the juvenile court erred by finding there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate their parental rights. After reviewing the record, we conclude the court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and are not clearly erroneous. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating B.G.’s and R.M.’s parental rights. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). [¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte