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.S., Jr., Minor Child State of North Dakota, and the Director of the Roughrider North Human Service Zone, Petitioners and Appellees v. J.S., Jr., a child; J.S., Sr., their father; and the Executive Director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services, Respondents and
S.K., their mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of N.S., Minor Child State of North Dakota, and the Director of the Roughrider North Human Service Zone, Petitioners and Appellees v. N.S., a child; J.S., Sr., their father; and the Executive Director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services, Respondents and
S.K., their mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of B.S., Minor Child State of North Dakota, and the Director of the Roughrider North Human Service Zone, Petitioners and Appellees v. B.S., a child; J.S., Sr., their father; and the Executive Director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services, Respondents and S.K., their mother, Respondent and Appellant
[¶1] S.K. appeals from a juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to J.S., Jr., N.S., and B.S. S.K. argues the court erred in finding there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate her parental rights, and the court abused its discretion in terminating her parental rights.
[¶2] After review of the record, we conclude the juvenile court's findings are not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated S.K.’s parental rights. See In re A.C., 2022 ND 123, ¶ 5, 975 N.W.2d 567 (the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to factual findings made in a termination of parental rights proceeding); see also In re A.P., 2022 ND 131, ¶ 2, 976 N.W.2d 244 (whether terminating parental rights would promote the child's welfare is left to the court's discretion when the required elements are proven by clear and convincing evidence). 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. 20240257, No. 20240258, No. 20240259
Decided: October 24, 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)