Interest of B.R.

FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
JULY 19, 2023
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2023 ND 137In the Interest of B.R., a child
Lori Houseman, L.S.W., Cass County
Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
B.G., father; A.R., mother, Respondents and Appellants
and
John Doe, father; B.R., a child, Respondents
No. 20230186
In the Interest of M.G., a child
Lori Houseman, L.S.W., Cass County
Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
B.G., father; A.R., mother, Respondents and Appellants
and
M.G., a child, Respondent
No. 20230187
Appeals from the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Daniel E. Gast, Judicial Referee.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Patrick E. Fylling, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for petitioner and
appellee.
Jay R. Greenwood, Fargo, N.D., for respondent and appellant B.G.
Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for respondent and appellant A.R.
Interest of B.R. & M.G.
Nos. 20230186-20230187
Per Curiam.
[¶1] B.G. and A.R. appeal from juvenile court orders terminating their
parental rights to B.R. and M.G. B.G. argues the court erred in terminating
his parental rights and finding reasonable efforts were made to reunify the
family. A.R. argues the court erred in finding that the conditions and causes of
the need for protection are likely to continue and that the children will
probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm without
termination.
[¶2] The juvenile court terminated A.R.’s parental rights after finding she
subjected B.R. and M.G. to aggravated circumstances under N.D.C.C. § 27-
20.3-20(1)(b). A.R. admitted to subjecting M.G. to prenatal exposure to chronic
or severe use of alcohol or a controlled substance and allowing B.R. to be
present in an environment subjecting B.R. to exposure to a controlled
substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia. A.R. does not challenge
these findings, and we conclude they are not clearly erroneous. See Interest of
A.C., 2022 ND 123, ¶ 5, 975 N.W.2d 567 (applying clearly erroneous standard
of review to factual findings in a termination of parental rights proceeding).
Because the court may terminate parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-
20(1)(b), we need not determine whether the court erred in finding the
conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue under
N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(1).
[¶3] The juvenile court terminated B.G.’s parental rights after finding the
children are in need of protection and have been in the care, custody, and
control of the human service zone for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights.
N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2). B.G. does not challenge these findings, and we
conclude they are not clearly erroneous.
[¶4] We further conclude the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding
reasonable efforts were made under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-18 to reunite the
children and their family and to maintain family connections. The court did
1
not abuse its discretion by terminating the parental rights of B.G. and A.R. We
summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
[¶5] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
2