Interest of J.G.

2022 ND 167, 979 N.W.2d 913

• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
• Decided: September 1, 2022
• Docket: 20220189
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 167

In the Interest of J.G., minor child

State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. J.G., child, T.R., father, Respondents and M.G., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20220189

In the Interest of M.G., minor child

State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. M.G., child, T.R., father, Respondents and M.G., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20220190

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, the Honorable Connie S. Portscheller, Judicial Referee.

AFFIRMED. Per Curiam.

Rozanna C. Larson, State’s Attorney, Minot, N.D., for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kyle R. Craig, Minot, N.D., for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief. Interest of J.G. & M.G. Nos. 20220189 & 20220190

Per Curiam.

[¶1] M.G. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her minor children, J.G. and M.G. The order also terminated the parental rights of the children’s father, T.R. The juvenile court found the children were in need of protection, the conditions causing the need for protection were likely to continue and for that reason the children are suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm, and the children had been in foster care for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights. N.D.C.C. § 27- 20.3-20(1)(c)(1) and (2). The court terminated M.G.’s and T.R’s parental rights.

[¶2] On appeal, M.G. argues the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights, because the evidence in the record does not support the court’s decision and the court failed to consider important evidence. After reviewing the record, we conclude the court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and are not clearly erroneous. A finding that a child is in need of protection, plus either of the other two findings, provides an adequate and independent ground for termination. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating M.G.’s parental rights. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte