Opinion
20230197 20230198 20230199
08-17-2023
In the Interest of A.B., a child v. A.B., a child, Respondent Leslie Johnson, L.B.S.W., Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee and J.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of A.C., minor child Leslie Johnson, L.B.S.W., Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.C., a child; D.C., father, and Respondents J.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of A.W., minor child Tony Jablonsky, Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.W., a child; A.W., father, and Respondents J.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant
Rebecca R. Jund, Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief. Elizabeth J. Sundby, Fargo, N.D. for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.
Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Daniel E. Gast, Judicial Referee.
AFFIRMED.
Rebecca R. Jund, Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.
Elizabeth J. Sundby, Fargo, N.D. for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.
PER CURIAM.
[¶ 1] J.S. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to A.B., A.C., and A.W. She argues the court abused its discretion by terminating her parental rights.
[¶ 2] The juvenile court found the children have been subjected to aggravating circumstances as defined in N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-01(3)(h) when J.S. allowed the children to be present in an environment subjecting them to exposure to controlled substances. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(b). The court also found the children are in need of protection, and the children have been in the care, custody, and control of the human service zone for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2). J.S. does not challenge these findings. See Interest of B.R., 2023 ND 137, ¶ 2 ("Because the court may terminate parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(b), we need not determine whether the court erred in finding the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(1)."). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by terminating the parental rights of J.S. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
[¶ 3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr