In the INTEREST OF P.T.D., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. P.T.D., Child, and T.P.D., Father, Respondents A.R.D., Mother, Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of C.R.D., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. C.R.D., Child, and T.P.D., Father, Respondents A.R.D., Mother, Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of P.A.D., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. P.A.D., Child, and T.P.D., Father, Respondents A.R.D., Mother, Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of P.P.D., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. P.P.D., Child, and T.P.D., Father, Respondents A.R.D., Mother, Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of N.A.D., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. N.A.D., Child, and T.P.D., Father, Respondents A.R.D., Mother, Respondent and Appellant
[¶1] A.D. appeals from a juvenile court order finding her five children to be deprived. On appeal, A.D. argues the juvenile court erred by finding the children to be deprived because the unsanitary and dangerous household has been cured by a move to a new home, any drug issues are now under control, there was no evidence she used drugs around the children, and the record does not contain any evidence her actions have negatively affected the children. We conclude the juvenile court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Per Curiam.
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jon J. Jensen Lisa Fair McEvers Daniel J. Crothers Jerod E. Tufte
Was this helpful?