N.H., Petitioner and Appellee v. II (2022)

[¶1] The biological father of A.A.H. appeals from an adoption decree terminating his parental rights and granting a petition for adoption. The father argues the district court erred by adopting the petitioner's findings of fact, finding he abandoned A.A.H., and terminating his parental rights. “[A]lthough we prefer trial courts prepare their own findings of fact, if the adopted findings adequately explain the basis of the trial court's decision, we will uphold them unless clearly erroneous.” Roberson v. Roberson, 2004 ND 203, ¶ 11, 688 N.W.2d 380. We conclude the court's findings adequately explain its decision to terminate parental rights, are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and are not clearly erroneous. The court did not clearly err in finding the father abandoned A.A.H., and did not abuse its discretion by terminating his parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-19. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Per Curiam.

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte