[¶1] J.S. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to A.B., A.C., and A.W. She argues the court abused its discretion by terminating her parental rights.
[¶2] The juvenile court found the children have been subjected to aggravating circumstances as defined in N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-01(3)(h) when J.S. allowed the children to be present in an environment subjecting them to exposure to controlled substances. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(b). The court also found the children are in need of protection, and the children have been in the care, custody, and control of the human service zone for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2). J.S. does not challenge these findings. See Interest of B.R., 2023 ND 137, ¶ 2 (“Because the court may terminate parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(b), we need not determine whether the court erred in finding the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(1).”). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by terminating the parental rights of J.S. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Per Curiam.
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr