Background
A.M. appealed a Traill County juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to R.J., H.J., and A.J. She challenged the juvenile court’s finding that the children were in need of protection and its decision to terminate her parental rights.
A.M. conceded that the children had spent at least 450 of the previous 660 nights in foster care or in the care, custody, and control of the department or human service zone. She nevertheless argued that the children were not in need of protection with respect to her.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding the children were in need of protection. The Court applied clear-error review to the juvenile court’s factual findings.
The Court also concluded that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by terminating A.M.’s parental rights. It summarily affirmed the termination order under North Dakota Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Key Takeaways
- A.M. conceded that the children satisfied the statutory foster-care-duration requirement.
- The juvenile court’s finding that the children were in need of protection was not clearly erroneous.
- Terminating A.M.’s parental rights was not an abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a finding that children are in need of protection is reviewed for clear error, while the ultimate decision to terminate parental rights is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Because the Supreme Court summarily affirmed, the opinion establishes the result and applicable standards of review without providing an extended discussion of the underlying evidence.