State v. Carpenter

2011 ND 20
North Dakota Supreme Court·Decided February 8, 2011·No. 20100085·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

Filed 2/8/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2011 ND 14

Interest of J.W., a Child

Kendra Cassavant, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

J.W., a child; A.W., Mother;

C.W., Father; Vicky Altringer,

Guardian Ad Litem; Executive

Director, ND Department of

Human Services, Respondents

C.W., Father, and A.W., Mother, Appellants

No. 20100376

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Brian D. Grosinger (argued), Jackson J. Lofgren (on brief), and Gabrielle J. Goter (appeared), Assistant State’s Attorneys, Morton County Courthouse, 210 2nd Avenue NW, Mandan, ND 58554, for petitioner and appellee.

Carey A. Goetz (argued), 316 N. 5th Street, P.O. Box 1695, Bismarck, ND 58502-1695, for respondent and appellant C.W.

Kevin McCabe (argued), Office of the Public Defender, 135 Sims, Suite 221, Dickinson, ND 58601, for respondent and appellant A.W.

Interest of J.W., a child

No. 20100376

Per Curiam.

[¶1] A.W. (mother) and C.W. (father) appeal from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to J.W., a minor child.  A judicial referee made findings of fact, and those findings were adopted by the district judge in its order.  The court found J.W. was a deprived child with the conditions and causes of deprivation likely to continue, and J.W. would probably suffer physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm.  The court also found A.W. and C.W. abandoned J.W. by failing to communicate with her or provide for the care and support of J.W. as required by law.  A.W. argues the court erred in finding the causes and conditions of deprivation were likely to continue, and termination of her parental rights was not necessary.  C.W. argues the court erred in terminating his rights based on his relationship with A.W., and there was no evidence deprivation would likely continue because of him.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

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

State v. Carpenter, 2011 ND 20 (N.D. 2011).

2011 ND 20 (State v. Carpenter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Roller
2024 ND 180 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2024)
State v. Maines
2019 ND 274 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2019)
State v. Hamre
2019 ND 86 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2019)
Ratliff v. State
2016 ND 129 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2016)
State v. Jasmann
2015 ND 101 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2015)
State v. Booth
2015 ND 59 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2015)
State v. Brossart
2015 ND 1 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2015)
State v. Estrada
2013 ND 79 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)
Gadeco v. Industrial Commission
2013 ND 72 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)
State v. Cain
2011 ND 213 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
Sorenson v. Slater
2011 ND 216 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
State v. McElya
2011 ND 137 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
Interest of A.S.
2011 ND 129 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
Interest of J.W.
2011 ND 14 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)