In the INTEREST OF K.H., a child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. K.H., child; A.C., mother, Respondents J.H., father, Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of K.H., a child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. K.H., child; A.C., mother, Respondents J.H., father, Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of K.H., a child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. K.H., child; A.C., mother, Respondents J.H., father, Respondent and Appellant
[¶1] J.H. appealed from a juvenile court's findings of fact and orders terminating his parental rights to K.H., K.H., and K.H. On appeal, J.H. argues the court erred by finding by clear and convincing evidence that the causes of deprivation are likely to continue and by finding beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody of the children by the father is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children.
[¶2] We conclude the evidence was sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence the children are deprived, the conditions and causes of 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 (now N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20). The evidence was also sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the continued custody of the children by J.H. 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 conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in terminating J.H.’s parental rights. We summarily affirm the orders 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 Gary H. Lee, D.J.[¶4] The Honorable Gary H. Lee, D.J., sitting in place of Crothers, J., disqualified.
Was this helpful?