Per Curiam.
[¶1] N.B., the mother of S.B., appeals from a juvenile courts findings of fact and order terminating her parental rights to S.B. N.B. argues evidence was insufficient for the court to find by clear and convincing evidence that S.B. was in need of protection, that the causes and conditions of the need for S.B.’s protection were likely to continue, or that S.B. would suffer harm absent a termination of parental rights. We summarily affirm.
[¶2] The juvenile court found S.B. was subjected to aggravated circumstances because of prenatal exposure to fentanyl and THC and was abandoned by his father. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-01(3)(a) and (g). The court found N.B. is incarcerated, cannot care for S.B. now or in the future, and has not made progress in treating her drug addiction. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(1). The court also found the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue or will not be remedied, and for that reason the child will continue to be in need of protection for the foreseeable future because these conditions will cause S.B. serious harm. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(1). On this record, evidence exists to support the courts findings. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). [¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
Per Curiam.