Charles Stock, State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. and (2026)

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

In the INTEREST OF R.J., Child Charles Stock, State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. R.J., Child; B.J., Father, Respondents and Appellees and
A.M., Mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of H.J., Child Charles Stock, State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. H.J., Child; B.J., Father, Respondents and Appellees and
A.M., Mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of A.J., Child Charles Stock, State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.J., Child; B.J., Father, Respondents and Appellees and A.M., Mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20260227, No. 20260228, No. 20260229

Decided: August 06, 2026

Charles A. Stock, State's Attorney, Hillsboro, ND, for petitioner and appellee; on brief. Leah J. Viste, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellant; on brief.

AFFIRMED.

[¶1] A.M. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. On appeal, A.M. argues the juvenile court clearly erred by finding the children are in need of protection and the court abused its discretion by terminating her parental rights. A.M. concedes the children have “been in foster care, in the care, custody, and control of the department or human service zone for at least four hundred fifty of the previous six hundred sixty nights.” N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2). She argues the children are not “in need of protection with respect to her.” See N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c) (the court must find the children are “in need of protection”); see also N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-01(5) (defining “child in need of protection”).

[¶2] After review of the record, we conclude the juvenile court did not clearly err by finding the children are in need of protection and the court did not abuse its discretion by terminating A.M.’s parental rights. See Interest of J.C., 2025 ND 217, ¶ 6, 29 N.W.3d 598 (we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review to a juvenile court's factual findings made in a termination of parental rights proceedings); see also Interest of W.J., 2026 ND 43, ¶ 1, 31 N.W.3d 895 (we review a juvenile court's decision to terminate parental rights under an abuse of discretion standard). We summarily affirm the juvenile court order terminating A.M.’s parental rights under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Per Curiam.

[¶3] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network