Interest of A.J.E.
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Interest of A.J.E. (N.D. 2024)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
In the Interest of A.J.E., a child
Grand Forks County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee v.
A.J.E., Child; C.B., Father; Respondents and Appellees and
J.E., Mother, Respondent and Appellant
No. 20240245
Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Kristi P. Venhuizen, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Carmell F. Mattison, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Madison M. Schoenberg, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner and appellee; on brief.
Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent and appellant; on brief. Interest of A.J.E.
No. 20240245
Per Curiam. [¶1] J.E., the mother, appeals from a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights to A.J.E. She argues the juvenile court erred in finding the causes and conditions of the need for protection are likely to continue or will not be remedied. [¶2] We conclude the juvenile court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and support a finding the need for protection would continue. See In re A.B., 2017 ND 178, ¶ 12, 898 N.W.2d 676 (“We will not overturn a juvenile court’s findings of fact in a termination proceeding unless the findings are clearly erroneous under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a).”); see also In re J.C., 2024 ND 9, ¶ 22, 2 N.W.3d 228 (stating the decision whether to terminate parental rights is left to the court’s discretion when the statutory requirements are met). 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
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.