State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. C.D., mother, Respondent and Appellant (2023)

[¶1] C.D. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to K.J. and K.J. She argues the court abused its discretion by terminating her parental rights, challenging the court's finding the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue.

[¶2] The juvenile court found K.J. and K.J. to be children in need of protection and concluded they had been in the human service zone's care, custody, and control for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2). C.D. does not challenge these findings. See Interest of B.R., 2023 ND 137, ¶ 2, 993 N.W.2d 509 (“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).”). We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by terminating the parental rights of C.D. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Per Curiam.

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