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 J.R., a child Buffalo Bridges Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. J.R., a child; M.R., father, Respondents and
F.F., mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of T.R., a child Buffalo Bridges Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. T.R., a child; M.R., father, Respondents and F.F., mother, Respondent and Appellant
[¶1] F.F., the mother, appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children J.R. and T.R. She argues the court erred in finding the children were in need of protection, and that the causes and conditions of the need for protection are likely to continue. F.F. does not challenge the court's finding the children 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 children spent over 450 of the last 660 nights in the care, control, and custody of the human service zone and are in need of protection. We conclude the court's findings are not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion by terminating F.F.’s parental rights. See In re A.P., 2024 ND 43, ¶ 12, 4 N.W.3d 232 (stating the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to factual findings made in a termination of parental rights proceeding); In re J.C., 2024 ND 9, ¶ 22, 2 N.W.3d 228 (stating the decision whether to terminate parental rights is left to the court's discretion when the statutory requirements are met). We need not address F.F.’s challenge to the court's other findings. See 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).
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. 20240207, No. 20240208
Decided: September 26, 2024
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)