Court Opinion

ID: 9556485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 15:07:22.205589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:16.389377
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                          AUGUST 17, 2023
                                                                     STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                   2023 ND 158

In the Interest of A.M., a child

Grand Forks County Human Service Zone,              Petitioner and Appellee
      v.
A.M., child, C.M., mother,                                    Respondents
      and
B.M., father,                                     Respondent and Appellant

                                   No. 20230209

In the Interest of M.M., a child

Grand Forks County Human Service Zone,              Petitioner and Appellee
      v.
M.M, child, C.M., mother,                                     Respondents
      and
B.M., father,                                     Respondent and Appellant

                                   No. 20230210

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.
Zachary M. Ista, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner
and appellee; submitted on brief.

Justin M. Balzer, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on
brief.
                           Interest of A.M. and M.M.
                            Nos. 20230209-20230210

Per Curiam.

[¶1] B.M., the father, appeals from the juvenile court’s amended findings of
fact, conclusions, and order terminating his parental rights to the minor
children, A.M. and M.M. The order also terminated the parental rights of the
children’s mother, C.M. The court found the children were in need of
protection; the conditions causing the need for protection were likely to
continue and for that reason the children are suffering or will probably suffer
serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm; and the children had been
in foster care for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights. N.D.C.C. § 27-
20.3-20(1)(c)(1) and (2). B.M. argues the court erred by finding there was clear
and convincing evidence the parental rights of B.M. and C.M. should be
terminated.

[¶2] On this record, the juvenile court’s findings of fact are not clearly
erroneous; the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating parental rights.
We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7); see Interest
of R.L.-P., 2014 ND 28, ¶ 23, 842 N.W.2d 889 (“Because a finding that the
children have been in foster care more than 450 out of the previous 660 nights,
along with a finding of deprivation [now, the children are ‘in need of
protection’], is sufficient to terminate parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-
44(1)(c) [now N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)], it is unnecessary to address the
parents’ challenge to the finding that the conditions and causes of the
deprivation will likely continue.”); see also Interest of E.H., 2022 ND 200, ¶ 2,
981 N.W.2d 916; Interest of J.G., 2022 ND 167, ¶ 2, 979 N.W.2d 913; Interest
of A.P., 2022 ND 131, ¶ 3, 976 N.W.2d 244.

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

                                       1