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 K.C. III, a child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. T.A., Mother, Respondent and Appellant K.C. II, Father, Respondent
In the Interest of E.C., a child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. T.A., Mother, Respondent and Appellant K.C. II, Father, Respondent
In the Interest of H.A., a child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. T.A., Mother, Respondent and Appellant K.C. II, Father, Respondent
[¶1] T.A. appealed from a juvenile court's findings of fact and orders terminating her parental rights to K.C. III, E.C., and H.A. On appeal, T.A. argues the court abused its discretion when it denied a continuance and held a hearing without the presence of the father, K.C. II. Additionally, T.A. argues the court erred when it found the State met its burden of proof for the terminations.
[¶2] We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying T.A.’s request for a continuance due to K.C. II's absence at the hearing. See Interest of A.P.D.S.P.-G., 2020 ND 72, ¶ 8, 940 N.W.2d 602 (holding a court did not have a duty to ensure a parent appeared for a termination proceeding). The State's evidence was sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence the children are deprived, the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue, and the children are suffering, or will in the future probably suffer, serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm as required for the termination of parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(1)(c). The State's evidence was also sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the continued custody of the children by T.A. is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Per Curiam.
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte William A. Neumann, S.J.[¶4] The Honorable William Neumann, S.J., sitting in place of Crothers, J., disqualified.
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. 20210122, No. 20210123, No. 20210124
Decided: June 24, 2021
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)