Interest of E.G.U.
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2016 ND 243
In the Interest of E.G.U., a child
Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
E.G.U., a child, R.U., mother, Respondents
R.U., mother, Respondent and Appellant
No. 20160355
In the
Interest of J.E.U., a child
Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and
Appellee
v.
J.E.U., a child, R.U., mother, Respondents
R.U., mother, Respondent
and Appellant
No. 20160356
Appeal from the Juvenile Court of
Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Jon J. Jensen,
Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State's Attorney, and
Ashley Hinds, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, P.O. Box 5607,
Grand Forks, N.D. 58206-5607, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.
Mark T. Blumer, P.O. Box 7340, Fargo, N.D. 58106, for
respondents and appellant; submitted on brief.
Interest of E.G.U.
& Interest of J.E.U.Nos. 20160355 &
20160356Per Curiam.[¶1] The mother, R.U.,
appeals from a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights. The juvenile court found
the children are deprived, the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue, the
children are suffering or will probably suffer serious harm, and the children have been in foster
care for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights. The mother argues there was not clear and
convincing evidence the deprivation was likely to continue. We conclude the court's findings are
not clearly erroneous and the court made alternate findings sufficient to terminate parental rights.
See N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(1)(c). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7); In re R.L.-P., 2014 ND 28, ¶¶ 19-23, 842 N.W.2d 889.[¶2] Gerald W.
VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J.
Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.