State v. McElya

¶1Filed 7/13/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72011 ND 129

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11In the Interest of A.S., D.S., F.S., J.S., Jr., and K.S., minor children

¶12

¶13Emeline Burkett, Petitioner and Appellee

¶14

¶15v.

¶16

¶17L.S., Mother, J.S., Father,

¶18R.V., Father, B.R., Father, Respondents

¶19

¶20L.S., Mother,                                                                                                 Appellant

¶21

¶22

¶23

¶24Nos. 20110116-20110120

¶25

¶26

¶27

¶28Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas E. Merrick, Judge.

¶29

¶30AFFIRMED.

¶31

¶32Per Curiam.

¶33

¶34Fredrick R. Fremgen, State’s Attorney, 511 2nd Ave. SE, Jamestown, ND 58401, for petitioner and appellee.

¶35

¶36Erica Shively, Bismarck/Mandan Public Defenders’ Office, 314 E. Thayer Ave., Ste. 200, Bismarck, ND 58501, for appellant.

¶37Interest of A.S., D.S., F.S., J.S., Jr., and K.S.

¶38Nos. 20110116-20110120

¶39

¶40Per Curiam.

¶41[¶1] L.S. appealed from a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights to her children. L.S. argues the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable efforts were made to reunify her family is clearly erroneous. She also argues the juvenile court’s findings that the conditions and causes of the children’s deprivation are likely to continue and that the children would likely suffer harm absent termination are clearly erroneous. These findings are not clearly erroneous.  We affirm the juvenile court judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

¶42[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶43Carol Ronning Kapsner

¶44Mary Muehlen Maring

¶45Daniel J. Crothers

¶46Dale V. Sandstrom