Skip to main content

Thomas A. Gehrz, Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. E.L.H., mother, Respondent and Appellant (2021)

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

In the INTEREST OF D.H.H., a child Thomas A. Gehrz, Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. D.H.H., a child; S.H., father, Respondents E.L.H., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20210238

Decided: October 14, 2021

Haley L. Wamstad, State's Attorney (appeared), Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State's Attorney (on brief), and Samantha Schmidt (argued), under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Grand Forks, N.D., for petitioner and appellee. Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, N.D., for respondent and appellant.

[¶1] E.H. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to D.H.H. After a hearing on July 14, 2021, the juvenile court found D.H.H. was deprived, the deprivation was likely to continue, and the child had been in foster care for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44 (now N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20). The court terminated E.H.’s parental rights.

[¶2] On appeal, E.H. argues the juvenile court erred by finding there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate her parental rights. After reviewing the record, we conclude the court's findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and are not clearly erroneous. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating E.H.’s parental rights. 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 Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Copied to clipboard