Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2011 ND 20

State v. Carpenter

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 2011

North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 2011-02-08

Decided 2011-02-08

¶1Filed 2/8/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72011 ND 14

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11Interest of J.W., a Child

¶12

¶13Kendra Cassavant, Petitioner and Appellee

¶14

¶15v.

¶16

¶17J.W., a child; A.W., Mother;

¶18C.W., Father; Vicky Altringer,

¶19Guardian Ad Litem; Executive

¶20Director, ND Department of

¶21Human Services, Respondents

¶22

¶23C.W., Father, and A.W., Mother, Appellants

¶24

¶25

¶26

¶27No. 20100376

¶28

¶29

¶30

¶31Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

¶32

¶33AFFIRMED.

¶34

¶35Per Curiam.

¶36

¶37Brian D. Grosinger (argued), Jackson J. Lofgren (on brief), and Gabrielle J. Goter (appeared), Assistant State’s Attorneys, Morton County Courthouse, 210 2nd Avenue NW, Mandan, ND 58554, for petitioner and appellee.

¶38

¶39Carey A. Goetz (argued), 316 N. 5th Street, P.O. Box 1695, Bismarck, ND 58502-1695, for respondent and appellant C.W.

¶40

¶41Kevin McCabe (argued), Office of the Public Defender, 135 Sims, Suite 221, Dickinson, ND 58601, for respondent and appellant A.W.

¶42Interest of J.W., a child

¶43No. 20100376

¶44

¶45Per Curiam.

¶46[¶1] A.W. (mother) and C.W. (father) appeal from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to J.W., a minor child.  A judicial referee made findings of fact, and those findings were adopted by the district judge in its order.  The court found J.W. was a deprived child with the conditions and causes of deprivation likely to continue, and J.W. would probably suffer physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm.  The court also found A.W. and C.W. abandoned J.W. by failing to communicate with her or provide for the care and support of J.W. as required by law.  A.W. argues the court erred in finding the causes and conditions of deprivation were likely to continue, and termination of her parental rights was not necessary.  C.W. argues the court erred in terminating his rights based on his relationship with A.W., and there was no evidence deprivation would likely continue because of him.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

¶47[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶48Carol Ronning Kapsner

¶49Dale V. Sandstrom

¶50Daniel J. Crothers

¶51Mary Muehlen Maring

¶52

/2011/nd/20 · .json · Public domain