Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
In the INTEREST OF B.R., a child Lori Houseman, L.S.W., Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. B.G., father; A.R., mother, Respondents and Appellants John Doe, father; B.R., a child, Respondents
In the Interest of M.G., a child Lori Houseman, L.S.W., Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. B.G., father; A.R., mother, Respondents and Appellants M.G., a child, Respondent
[¶1] B.G. and A.R. appeal from juvenile court orders terminating their parental rights to B.R. and M.G. B.G. argues the court erred in terminating his parental rights and finding reasonable efforts were made to reunify the family. A.R. argues the court erred in finding that the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue and that the children will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm without termination.
[¶2] The juvenile court terminated A.R.’s parental rights after finding she subjected B.R. and M.G. to aggravated circumstances under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(b). A.R. admitted to subjecting M.G. to prenatal exposure to chronic or severe use of alcohol or a controlled substance and allowing B.R. to be present in an environment subjecting B.R. to exposure to a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia. A.R. does not challenge these findings, and we conclude they are not clearly erroneous. See Interest of A.C., 2022 ND 123, ¶ 5, 975 N.W.2d 567 (applying clearly erroneous standard of review to factual findings in a termination of parental rights proceeding). Because the court may terminate parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(b), we need not determine whether the court erred in finding the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(1).
[¶3] The juvenile court terminated B.G.’s parental rights after finding the children are in need of protection and have been in the care, custody, and control of the human service zone for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2). B.G. does not challenge these findings, and we conclude they are not clearly erroneous.
[¶4] We further conclude the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding reasonable efforts were made under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-18 to reunite the children and their family and to maintain family connections. The court did not abuse its discretion by terminating the parental rights of B.G. and A.R. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Per Curiam.
[¶5] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20230186, No. 20230187
Decided: July 19, 2023
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)