Court Opinion

ID: 9910485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 18:07:25.703934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:06.071411
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                        IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                     CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                          DECEMBER 15, 2023
                                                                      STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                2023 ND 238

In the Interest of J.M.M., Born in 2017

A.B.M., Biological Father,                            Petitioner and Appellee
      v.
A.M.M., Biological Mother,                         Respondent and Appellant
      and
J.M.M., Minor Child,                                                Respondent

                                No. 20230348

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Pamela A. Nesvig, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Theresa L. Kellington, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellee.

William Woodworth, Bismarck, ND, for respondent and appellant.
                             Interest of J.M.M.
                               No. 20230348

Per Curiam.

[¶1] A.M.M. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to J.M.M. She argues the court erred when it found she abandoned
J.M.M. and that the court abused its discretion in terminating her parental
rights. We conclude the court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and the court
did not abuse its discretion when it terminated A.M.M.’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).

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

                                       1