Interest of K.C. , 2021 ND 115 ( 2021 )

FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
JUNE 24, 2021
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2021 ND 115In the Interest of K.C. III, a child
State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
T.A., Mother Respondent and Appellant
and
K.C. II, Father, Respondent and Appellee
No. 20210122
In the Interest of E.C., a child
State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
T.A., mother Respondent and Appellant
and
K.C. II, Father, Respondent
No. 20210123
In the Interest of H.A., a child
State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
T.A., mother, Respondent and Appellant
and
K.C. II, Father, Respondent
No. 20210124
Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Ramsey County, Northeast Judicial District,
the Honorable Lonnie Olson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Maren H. Halbach, Assistant State’s Attorney, Devils Lake, ND, for petitioner
and appellee; submitted on brief.
Ulysses S. Jones, Devils Lake, ND, for respondent and appellant T.A;
submitted on brief.
Interest of K.C. III, E.C., and H.A.
Nos. 20210122-20210124
Per Curiam.
[¶1] T.A. appealed from a juvenile court’s findings of fact and orders
terminating her parental rights to K.C. III, E.C., and H.A. On appeal, T.A.
argues the court abused its discretion when it denied a continuance and held
a hearing without the presence of the father, K.C. II. Additionally, T.A. argues
the court erred when it found the State met its burden of proof for the
terminations.
[¶2] We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying
T.A.’s request for a continuance due to K.C. II’s absence at the hearing. See
Interest of A.P.D.S.P.-G., 2020 ND 72, ¶ 8, 940 N.W.2d 602 (holding a court did
not have a duty to ensure a parent appeared for a termination proceeding). The
State’s evidence was sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence the
children are deprived, the conditions and causes of the 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(1)(c). The State’s
evidence was also sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
continued custody of the children by T.A. 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 summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
William A. Neumann, S.J.
[¶4] The Honorable William Neumann, S.J., sitting in place of Crothers, J.,
disqualified.
1