C.H. v. C.H. (In Re C.H.)

North Dakota Supreme Court

C.H. v. C.H. (In Re C.H.)

2019 ND 61, 924 N.W.2d 125

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 13, 2019

Docket20190018; 20190019; 20190020; 20190021

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2019 ND 61 (C.H. v. C.H. (In Re C.H.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C.H. v. C.H. (In Re C.H.), 2019 ND 61, 924 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

*126 [¶1] M.H. appeals from a juvenile court judgment terminating his parental rights to his four children. On appeal, M.H. argues the juvenile court erred by finding the children to be deprived and that the causes of the deprivation were likely to continue, causing harm to the children. The juvenile court terminated parental rights based on several findings, including finding the children were subjected to aggravated circumstances under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(3)(b) and (h), due to M.H.'s failure to address substance abuse issues and the children's exposure to methamphetamine. We conclude the juvenile court's finding of aggravated circumstances is supported by clear and convincing evidence, is not clearly erroneous, and supports the termination of M.H.'s parental rights. See Interest of D.M.W ., 2019 ND 8 , ¶ 1, 921 N.W.2d 426 (exposure to aggravated circumstances is an adequate ground for termination of parental rights). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jon J. Jensen

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

*126 [¶1] M.H. appeals from a juvenile court judgment terminating his parental rights to his four children. On appeal, M.H. argues the juvenile court erred by finding the children to be deprived and that the causes of the deprivation were likely to continue, causing harm to the children. The juvenile court terminated parental rights based on several findings, including finding the children were subjected to aggravated circumstances under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(3)(b) and (h), due to M.H.'s failure to address substance abuse issues and the children's exposure to methamphetamine. We conclude the juvenile court's finding of aggravated circumstances is supported by clear and convincing evidence, is not clearly erroneous, and supports the termination of M.H.'s parental rights. See Interest of D.M.W ., 2019 ND 8 , ¶ 1, 921 N.W.2d 426 (exposure to aggravated circumstances is an adequate ground for termination of parental rights). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jon J. Jensen

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2019 ND 61, 924 N.W.2d 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ch-v-ch-in-re-ch-nd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack