[¶1] T.I. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to S.M.F. T.I. argues the court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence to establish the conditions and causes of the need for protection were likely to continue and that S.M.F. would likely suffer harm absent termination of T.I.’s parental rights.
[¶2] The juvenile court found S.M.F. to be a child in need of protection and concluded she had been in the human service zones care, custody, and control for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2). S.M.F. does not challenge this finding. See Interest of B.R., 2023 ND 137, ¶ 2, 993 N.W.2d 509 (“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).”). After reviewing the record, we conclude the courts findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, are not clearly erroneous, and the court did not abuse its discretion by terminating the parental rights of T.I. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Per Curiam.
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr