Interest of A.G.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT APRIL 20, 2021 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2021 ND 67 In the Interest of A.G., a child Eric Hetland, Kidder County State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.G., child; unknown father, Respondents and E.G., mother, Respondent and Appellant No. 20210075 Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Kidder County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Jay A. Schmitz, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Eric B. Hetland, State’s Attorney, Steele, ND, for petitioner and appellee. Mary E. Depuydt, Wishek, ND, for respondent and appellant. Interest of A.G. No. 20210075 Per Curiam. [¶1] E.R.G., the mother, appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to A.G. On appeal, the mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her request for a continuance and the court erred by finding there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate her parental rights. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the mother’s request for a continuance. The court found there is clear and convincing evidence the child was abandoned and is a deprived child. There is clear and convincing evidence supporting the court’s finding that the child has been abandoned. We conclude the court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, are not clearly erroneous, and support termination of E.R.G.’s parental rights. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7); see In re Adoption of A.S., 2018 ND 265, ¶ 16, 920 N.W.2d 301 (holding it was unnecessary to consider whether the district court erred in finding parent abandoned children because we affirmed the court’s alternate findings on deprivation, which support the legal requirements for terminating parental rights). [¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte 1