Interest of J.M. , 2021 ND 202 ( 2021 )

FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2021 ND 202In the Interest of J.M., a child
State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
J.M., child, Respondent
and
R.M., father; S.M., mother, Respondents and Appellants
No. 20210268
In the Interest of J.M., a child
State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
J.M., child, Respondent
and
R.M., father; S.M., mother, Respondents and Appellants
No. 20210269
In the Interest of J.M., a child
State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
J.M., child, Respondent
and
R.M., father; S.M., mother, Respondents and Appellants
1
No. 20210270
In the Interest of J.M., a child
State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
J.M., child, Respondent
and
R.M., father; S.M., mother, Respondents and Appellants
No. 20210271
In the Interest of J.M., a child
State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
J.M., child, Respondent
and
R.M., father; S.M., mother, Respondents and Appellants
No. 20210272
Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Dickey County, Southeast Judicial District,
the Honorable Daniel D. Narum, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Kimberly J. Radermacher, State’s Attorney, Edgeley, ND, for petitioner,
respondent, and appellee.
Justin M. Balzer (appeared), Bismarck, ND, for respondent and appellant
R.M., father.
2
Mary E. Depuydt, Wishek, ND, for respondent and appellant S.M., mother.
3
Interest of J.M.
Nos. 20210268-20210272
Per Curiam.
[¶1] R.M., father, and S.M, mother, appeal from a juvenile court order
terminating their parental rights to their five minor children, all of whom have
the initials J.M. R.M. and S.M. both argue the district court erred when it
found they subjected the children to aggravated circumstances and that
deprivation of the children is likely to continue. S.M. argues the findings
specific to her conduct alone are not adequate to show aggravated
circumstances.
[¶2] The record establishes the juvenile court’s findings are supported by
clear and convincing evidence and are not clearly erroneous. See In re A.L.E.,
2018 ND 257, ¶ 4, 920 N.W.2d 461 (the elements required for termination of
parental rights must be established by clear and convincing evidence; we apply
the clearly erroneous standard of review to the juvenile court’s findings).
Based on our review of the record, we conclude the court did not abuse its
discretion when it terminated R.M. and S.M.’s parental rights. See In re B.H.,
2018 ND 178, ¶ 4, 915 N.W.2d 668 (when the petitioner has met its burden, the
court has discretion in determining whether termination of parental rights
would promote the child’s welfare).
[¶3] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
4