Court Opinion

ID: 9957510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 16:10:07.478486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:24.347311
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 61

In the Interest of S.S.C., Child

State of North Dakota,                               Petitioner and Appellee
      v.
S.S.C., child; and
G.S.C., father;                                                Respondents
      and
L.S.C., mother,                                   Respondent and Appellant

                                   No. 20240053

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Kelly A. Dillon, Judicial Referee.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Rozanna C. Larson, State’s Attorney, Minot, ND, for petitioner and appellee;
submitted on brief.

Erica L. Chisholm, Wahpeton, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on
brief.
                               Interest of S.S.C.
                                 No. 20240053

Per Curiam.

[¶1] L.S.C. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to S.S.C. The court found it was undisputed S.S.C. had been in foster
care for a total of 724 continuous nights at the time of the hearing, and:

      “That the totality of circumstances in this case, including the
      history of drug use, the lack of consistent involvement in treatment
      and cooperation with the Human Service Zone, the length of time
      before a possible reunification can take place, and the prognostic
      evidence of the likelihood that the parents’ current inability to care
      for the child will continue into the foreseeable future, force the
      Court to the conclusion that the only real solution in this matter is
      a termination of parental rights.”

[¶2] L.S.C. argues the evidence does not support findings that S.S.C. is in
need of protection and the conditions and causes of the need for protection are
likely to continue. After reviewing the record, we conclude the juvenile court’s
findings are not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion
when it terminated L.S.C.’s parental rights. See Interest of A.C., 2022 ND 123,
¶ 5, 975 N.W.2d 567 (the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to factual
findings made in a termination of parental rights proceeding); see also Interest
of A.P., 2022 ND 131, ¶ 2, 976 N.W.2d 244 (whether terminating parental
rights would promote the child’s welfare is left to the court’s discretion when
the required elements are proven by clear and convincing evidence). We
summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

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

                                        1