Court Opinion

ID: 9957405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 15:07:50.838275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:20.832478
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                    IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                         APRIL 4, 2024
                                                                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT
                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                   2024 ND 57

In the Interest of J.D., a Child

State of North Dakota,                               Petitioner and Appellee
      v.
J.D., Child; J.D. Father;                                      Respondents
      and
J.D., Mother;                                     Respondent and Appellant

                                   No. 20240059

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Tessa M. Vaagen, Judicial Referee.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Joshua D. Breeze, Assistant State’s Attorney, Mandan, ND, for petitioner and
appellee; submitted on brief.

Justin M. Balzer, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on
brief.
                                Interest of J.D.
                                 No. 20240059

Per Curiam.

[¶1] J.D., the mother, appeals from the juvenile court’s findings of fact and
order terminating parental rights to her child, J.D. The mother argues the
court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence supported termination of
her parental rights. We summarily affirm.

[¶2] The juvenile court found the child was in need of protection because the
home the child and mother shared had drugs and drug paraphernalia. The
court found the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to
continue or will not be remedied and the child is suffering or probably will
suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm. The court’s findings
were not induced by an erroneous view of the law, evidence exists to support
the findings, and, on the entire record, this Court is not left with a definite and
firm conviction a mistake was made. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P.
35.1(a)(2).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                                        1