Interest of Z.F.T.
This text of 2018 ND 151 (Interest of Z.F.T.) 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.
Opinion
Filed 7/11/18 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2018 ND 151
In the Interest of Z.F.T., a child
----------
Grand Forks County Social Services, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
Z.F.T., a child, Respondent
and
R.B.T., father, and R.S., mother, Respondents and Appellants
No. 20180181
In the Interest of R.J.R., a child
Grand Forks County Social Services, Petitioner and Appellee
R.J.R., a child, C.C.R., father, Respondents
R.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant
No. 20180182
In the Interest of J.M.R., a child
J.M.R., a child, C.C.R., father, Respondents
No. 20180183
In the Interest of D.R.R., a child
D.R.R., a child, C.C.R., father, Respondents
No. 20180184
In the Interest of A.K.R., a child
A.K.R., a child, C.C.R., father, Respondents
No. 20180185
Appeals from the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Jay D. Knudson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Jackson Pasco (argued), third-year law student, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Jacqueline A. Gaddie, (appeared), Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner and appellee.
Kiara Costa Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for R.B.T., respondent and appellant.
Jessica J. Ahrendt, Grand Forks, ND, for R.S., respondent and appellant.
Interest of Z.F.T., R.J.R., J.M.R., D.D.R. and A.K.R.
No. 20180181-20180185
[¶1] R.S., the mother, appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights in Z.F.T., R.J.R., J.M.R., D.D.R., and A.K.R. R.B.T., father of Z.F.T., appeals the same order terminating his parental rights in Z.F.T. On appeal R.S. and R.B.T. argue clear and convincing evidence did not exist to support the termination. R.S. also argues reasonable efforts were not made to preserve and reunite the family. The juvenile court found the children were deprived; the deprivation was likely to continue; the children have already suffered or are likely to suffer serious physical, mental, moral or emotional harm if placed back in custody of their parents; and reasonable efforts were made to reunite the family. The juvenile court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jon J. Jensen
Jerod E. Tufte
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2018 ND 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interest-of-zft-nd-2018.