Opinion
No. 20180181 No. 20180182 No. 20180183 No. 20180184 No. 20180185
07-11-2018
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 In the Interest of R.J.R., a child Grand Forks County Social Services, Petitioner and Appellee v. R.J.R., a child, C.C.R., father, Respondents and R.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of J.M.R., a child Grand Forks County Social Services, Petitioner and Appellee v. J.M.R., a child, C.C.R., father, Respondents and R.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of D.R.R., a child Grand Forks County Social Services, Petitioner and Appellee v. D.R.R., a child, C.C.R., father, Respondents and R.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of A.K.R., a child Grand Forks County Social Services, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.K.R., a child, C.C.R., father, Respondents and R.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant
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.
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.
Per Curiam.
[¶ 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