Interest of A.P. , 2022 ND 131 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    IN THE OFFICE OF THE
    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
    JUNE 23, 2022
    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
    IN THE SUPREME COURT
    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
    
    2022 ND 131
    In the Interest of A.P., a child
    State of North Dakota, on behalf of
    North Star Human Service Zone,                      Petitioner and Appellee
    v.
    A.P., child, B.P., father,                                    Respondents
    and
    S.P., mother,                                     Respondent and Appellant
    No. 20220129
    In the Interest of E.P., a child
    State of North Dakota, on behalf of
    North Star Human Service Zone,                      Petitioner and Appellee
    v.
    E.P., child, B.P., father,                                    Respondents
    and
    S.P., mother,                                     Respondent and Appellant
    No. 20220130
    In the Interest of K.P., a child
    State of North Dakota, on behalf of
    North Star Human Service Zone,                       Petitioner and Appellee
    v.
    K.P., child, B.P., father,                                      Respondents
    and
    S.P., mother,                                     Respondent and Appellant
    No. 20220131
    Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial
    District, the Honorable Benjamen J. Johnson, Judge.
    AFFIRMED.
    Per Curiam.
    Nathan K. Madden, Assistant State’s Attorney, Williston, ND, for petitioner
    and appellee; submitted on brief.
    S.P., self-represented, Watford City, ND, respondent and appellant; submitted
    on brief.
    Interest of A.P., E.P., and K.P.
    Nos. 20220129-20220131
    Per Curiam.
    [¶1] S.P., the mother, appeals from juvenile court orders terminating her
    parental rights to her children, A.P., E.P., and K.P. S.P. argues that the district
    court erred in finding the causes and conditions of deprivation were likely to
    continue; erred in finding the children were suffering and would continue to
    suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm unless her parental
    rights were terminated; and erred in finding reasonable efforts were made to
    reunify her with the children. Because the district court’s findings that the
    children were deprived and in foster care more than 450 out of the previous
    660 nights were not clearly erroneous, the court did not abuse its discretion
    terminating parental rights, we affirm.
    [¶2] The juvenile court found the children are in need of protection and the
    children had been in the care, custody, and control of North Star Human
    Services Zone for 1,233 nights as of the time of the hearing. See N.D.C.C. § 27-
    20.3-20(1)(c)(2) (parental rights may be terminated if the court determines the
    children are in need of protection and “[t]he child has been in foster care, in
    the care, custody, and control of the department or human service zone for at
    least four hundred fifty out of the previous six hundred sixty nights.”). The
    court also found reasonable efforts were made to reunify S.P. and the children.
    We conclude the court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing
    evidence and are not clearly erroneous. See Interest of A.L.E., 
    2018 ND 257
    , ¶
    4, 
    920 N.W.2d 461
     (the elements required for termination of parental rights
    must be established by clear and convincing evidence and the court’s findings
    are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review). We also conclude
    the court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated S.P.’s parental rights.
    See Interest of B.H., 
    2018 ND 178
    , ¶ 4, 
    915 N.W.2d 668
     (the court has discretion
    in deciding whether termination of parental rights would promote the
    children’s welfare when the petitioner has met its burden).
    [¶3] Based on our determination under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2), nights
    in custody, it is not necessary to address the juvenile court’s findings on harm
    1
    to the children. Interest of R.L.-P., 
    2014 ND 28
    , ¶ 23, 
    842 N.W.2d 889
     (“Because
    a finding that the children have been in foster care more than 450 out of the
    previous 660 nights, along with a finding of deprivation, is sufficient to
    terminate parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(1)(c) [now N.D.C.C. § 27-
    20.3-20(1)(c)], it is unnecessary to address the parents’ challenge to the finding
    that the conditions and causes of the deprivation will likely continue.”).
    [¶4] We summarily affirm the orders terminating S.P.’s parental rights under
    N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
    [¶5] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
    Gerald W. VandeWalle
    Daniel J. Crothers
    Lisa Fair McEvers
    Jerod E. Tufte
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20220129

Citation Numbers: 2022 ND 131

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 6/23/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/23/2022