[¶1] T.A. appealed from a juvenile courts findings of fact and orders terminating her parental rights to K.C. III, E.C., and H.A. On appeal, T.A. argues the court abused its discretion when it denied a continuance and held a hearing without the presence of the father, K.C. II. Additionally, T.A. argues the court erred when it found the State met its burden of proof for the terminations.
[¶2] We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying T.A.’s request for a continuance due to K.C. IIs absence at the hearing. See Interest of A.P.D.S.P.-G., 2020 ND 72, ¶ 8, 940 N.W.2d 602 (holding a court did not have a duty to ensure a parent appeared for a termination proceeding). The States evidence was sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence the children are deprived, the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue, and the children are suffering, or will in the future probably suffer, serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm as required for the termination of parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(1)(c). The States evidence was also sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the continued custody of the children by T.A. is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Per Curiam.
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
William A. Neumann, S.J.[¶4] The Honorable William Neumann, S.J., sitting in place of Crothers, J., disqualified.