Court Opinion

ID: 9379729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 14:05:13.795571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.898464
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                  IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                               CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                      MARCH 16, 2023
                                                                STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                    IN THE SUPREME COURT
                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                  2023 ND 49

In the Interest of C.V., minor child

Ethan Hinze, L.B.S.W.,                             Petitioner and Appellee
      v.
C.V., child; C.B., Jr., father;
John Doe, father;                                            Respondents
      and
K.V., mother;                                    Respondent and Appellant

                                  No. 20230040

In the Interest of J.V., minor child

Ethan Hinze, L.B.S.W.,                             Petitioner and Appellee
      v.
J.V., child; D.N., father;
John Doe, father;                                            Respondents
      and
K.V., mother;                                    Respondent and Appellant

                                  No. 20230041
Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Daniel E. Gast, judicial referee.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Rebecca R. Jund, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND, for petitioner and
appellee; submitted on brief.

Elizabeth J. Sundby, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on
brief.
                           Interest of C.V. and J.V.
                           Nos. 20230040-20230041

Per Curiam.

[¶1] K.V., mother of C.V. and J.V., appeals from a juvenile court order
terminating her parental rights. On appeal, K.V. argues the court abused its
discretion by terminating her parental rights to C.V. and J.V. when the fathers’
rights were not terminated. K.V. also argues the court abused its discretion by
terminating her rights when the children had previously been returned to her
because she had completed the requirements of her case plan.

[¶2] The juvenile court terminated parental rights based on several findings,
including findings that K.V. subjected C.V. and J.V. to aggravated
circumstances under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(b), as both children had been
exposed to controlled substances. K.V. is not challenging the court’s findings.
We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to
terminate K.V.’s parental rights. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P.
35.1(a)(4).

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

                                       1