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 I.C., a child Lyndsey Tungseth, Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. I.C., a child; D.A., father; John Doe, father, Respondents S.C., mother; Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of I.C., a child Lyndsey Tungseth, Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. I.C., a child; Respondent S.C., mother; Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of I.C., minor child Lyndsey Tungseth, Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. I.C., child; John Doe, father; C.A., father; P.G., father; S.P., father; Respondents S.C., mother; Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of I.C., minor child Lyndsey Tungseth, Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. I.C., child; Respondent S.C., mother; Respondent and Appellant
[¶1] S.C. appeals from a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights to I.C. and I.C. S.C. argues the court abused its discretion by not following its order for disposition dated April 5, 2022, finding the children were in need of protection and continuing foster care rather than terminating her parental rights. Under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1), a court may terminate parental rights if the children are in need of protection and have been in the custody of the human services zone for 450 out of the previous 660 nights.
[¶2] The juvenile court did not err by relying on N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-26(7) to review the prior disposition that continued the children's placement in foster care. The court's findings of children in need of protection and nights in foster care are not clearly erroneous. See Interest of A.C., 2022 ND 123, ¶ 5, 975 N.W.2d 567 (the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to factual findings made in a termination of parental rights proceeding). As a result, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion terminating S.C.’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. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
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. 20230135, No. 20230136, No. 20230137, No. 20230138
Decided: June 21, 2023
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)