In the INTEREST OF P.T.D., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. P.T.D., Child, and T.P.D., Father, Respondents and A.R.D., Mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of C.R.D., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. C.R.D., Child, and T.P.D., Father, Respondents and A.R.D., Mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of P.A.D., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. P.A.D., Child, and T.P.D., Father, Respondents and A.R.D., Mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of P.P.D., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. P.P.D., Child, and T.P.D., Father, Respondents and A.R.D., Mother, Respondent and Appellant In the Interest of N.A.D., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. N.A.D., Child, and T.P.D., Father, Respondents and A.R.D., Mother, Respondent and Appellant

North Dakota Supreme Court2019-01-15No. No. 20180192; No. 20180193; No. 20180194; No. 20180195; No. 20180196

921 N.W.2d 176

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Per Curiam.

[¶1] A.D. appeals from a juvenile court order finding her five children to be deprived. On appeal, A.D. argues the juvenile court erred by finding the children to be deprived because the unsanitary and dangerous household has been cured by a move to a new home, any drug issues are now under control, there was no evidence she used drugs around the children, and the record does not contain any evidence her actions have negatively affected the children. We conclude the juvenile courts findings are not clearly erroneous. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jon J. Jensen

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte