State v. Carpenter
This text of 2011 ND 20 (State v. Carpenter) 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 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.
[¶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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2011 ND 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carpenter-nd-2011.