IN RE: the ADOPTION OF B.T.H. (2023)

[¶1] K.R.O. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to the minor child, B.T.H., and granting a petition for adoption. K.R.O. argues the district court erred in finding for a period of one year before the filing of the petition, she had not seen the minor child in person once and had two “face-time” visits which, combined, amounted to a total of less than one hour. Without any citation to the record, K.R.O. asserts the court ignored the evidence petitioners did not allow her to have contact with B.T.H. She also argues the court erred in finding her consent to the adoption was not required for it to proceed under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-06(1)(b)(1). Based on our review of the record, we conclude the court's findings are not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion by terminating K.R.O.’s parental rights. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Per Curiam.

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