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 C.K., Jr., a child Kelley M. R. Cole, Walsh County State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. C.K., Jr., child, D.A., mother, Respondents C.D.K., Sr., father, Respondent and Appellant
[¶1] C.D.K., the father, appeals from the juvenile court's corrected findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order terminating his parental rights to the minor child, C.K. The order also terminates the parental rights of the child's mother, D.A. C.D.K. argues the court erred in finding the child is in need of protection, the conditions causing the need for protection are likely to continue, and the child is suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm. C.D.K. does not challenge the court's finding the child spent over 450 of the last 660 nights in the care, control, and custody of the human service zone.
[¶2] The juvenile court found the child spent over 450 of the last 660 nights in the care, control, and custody of the human service zone and is in need of protection. The record supports the court's findings, and they are not clearly erroneous. We conclude C.D.K. has not shown the court abused its discretion terminating C.D.K.’s parental rights. We need not address C.D.K.’s challenge to the court's other findings. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2); Interest of 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).
Per Curiam.
[¶3] 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. 20230293
Decided: October 11, 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)