State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. R.M.P., Father, Respondent and Appellant (2025)

[¶1] R.M.P. appeals from a juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights to E.E. R.M.P. argues the juvenile court erred in finding that: (1) E.E. is a child in need of protection; (2) the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue; and (3) the State made active efforts to reunite E.E. with her family as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) and N.D.C.C. § 27-19.1-01. R.M.P. further argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating his 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 R.M.P.’s parents rights. See In re A.P., 2024 ND 43, ¶ 12, 4 N.W.3d 232 (“A court's decision to terminate an individual's parental rights is a question of fact, and that decision will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.”); see In re J.C., 2024 ND 9, ¶ 22, 2 N.W.3d 228 (the juvenile court has discretion to terminate parental rights if the statutory elements to terminate parental rights are met). 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