Court Opinion

ID: 9948491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 15:08:01.919489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:01.361002
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                  CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                         MARCH 7, 2024
                                                                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                    IN THE SUPREME COURT
                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                     2024 ND 36

In the Interest of J.C., minor child

State of North Dakota,                                Petitioner and Appellee
      v.
J.C., child, J.C., father to J.C.,                              Respondents
      and
T.W., mother,                                       Respondent and Appellant

                                     No. 20230377

In the Interest of M.W., minor child

State of North Dakota,                                Petitioner and Appellee
      v.
M.W., child, Unknown, father to M.W.,                           Respondents
      and
T.W., mother,                                       Respondent and Appellant

                                     No. 20230378

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.

William R. Hartl, Rugby, ND, for respondent and appellant.
                         Interest of J.C. and M.W.
                         Nos. 20230377 & 20230378

Per Curiam.

[¶1] T.W. appealed from a juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to J.C. and M.W. This Court retained jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P.
35(a)(3)(B) and remanded with instructions for the juvenile court to issue an
order based only on the evidence received at trial. In re J.C., 2024 ND 9, ¶ 1.
The parties did not request additional briefing or oral argument under
N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B)(ii). Upon reviewing the court’s order on remand, we
affirm the termination of parental rights.

[¶2] The juvenile court concluded the children spent over 450 of the last 660
nights in the care, control, and custody of the Human Service Zone. The court
further concluded the children are in need of protection. The court’s findings
are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. It is unnecessary to
address other findings of the court. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2); In re 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.”). 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