Interest of K.J. | |||||||
| 20090263 |
In the Interest of K.J., a child
In the Interest of D.J., a child In the Interest of L.J., a child ---------------- Pam Sand, L.S.W., Petitioner and Appellee v. R.J., Mother, Respondent and Appellant ---------------- Director, Cass County Social Services; K.J., a child, D.J., a child; L.J., a child; John Doe and R.G., fathers; and Kathy Kassenborg, Lay Guardian ad Litem, Respondents | ||||||
| Appeal from: |
Juvenile Court,
East Central Judicial District,
Cass County
Judge Douglas R. Herman | ||||||
| Nature of Action: | Termination/Parental Rights | ||||||
| Counsel: |
| ||||||
| Term: | 11/2009  Argument: 11/24/2009 01:30pm | ||||||
| ND cite: | 2010 ND 46 | ||||||
| NW cite: |
779 N.W.2d 635
Listen to recording of oral argument using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download. | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| Issues: |
Appellant's Statement of the Issues: I. Whether the trial court erred by finding that the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue. II. Whether the trial court erred by finding that a termination of respondent's parental rights is necessary to avoid serious physical, mental or emotional harm to the children. III. Whether N.D. R. App. 2.2 infringes Respondent's right to constitutional procedural due process. Appellee's Statement of the Issues: I. Whether the District Court erred in affirming the order issued by the judicial referee. II. Whether the petitioner established through clear and convincing evidence termination of parental rights is justified under N.D.C.C. 27-20-44. a. Were the children "deprived children" b. Is the deprivation likely to continue c. Will there be harm to the children d. Could termination be sustained on time alone? III. Whether N.D.R.App. 2.2 infringes on the respondent mother's right to constitutional due process. | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| 1 | 09/08/2009 | MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF | ||
| 2 | 09/08/2009 | ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (MAT). Denied | ||
| 3 | 09/10/2009 | NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/04/2009 | ||
| 4 | 09/10/2009 | ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 09/04/2009 | ||
| 5 | 09/10/2009 | This case is consolidated w/20090265. Make all entries except DIS & MAN in this case. | ||
| 6 | 09/10/2009 | Digital Recording of Hearing dated February 26-27, 2009 & Annotations (4) | ||
| 7 | 09/14/2009 | APPELLANT BRIEF | ||
| 8 | 09/14/2009 | APPELLANT APPENDIX | ||
| 9 | 09/14/2009 | RECORD ON APPEAL (3 vol.) Not rec'd nos. 8, 14, 19, 33 in R-142 & 3, 15, 23, 32, 37 & 51 in R-396 | ||
| 10 | 09/21/2009 | DISK - ATB | ||
| 11 | 09/21/2009 | Received corrected TOA; pages 8, 9 and 12; and corrected disk | ||
| 12 | 10/05/2009 | APPELLEE BRIEF | ||
| 13 | 10/06/2009 | DISK of AEB (CD) | ||
| 14 | 10/20/2009 | NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT | ||
| 15 | 11/24/2009 | APPEARANCES: Jared S. Simenson/Constance L. Cleveland, Asst. State's Atty. | ||
| 16 | 11/24/2009 | ARGUED: Simenson/Cleveland | ||
| 17 | 11/24/2009 | ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST | ||
| 18 | 03/16/2010 | DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED | ||
| 19 | 03/16/2010 | UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John | ||
| 20 | 03/17/2010 | Judgment Sent to Parties | ||
| 21 | 04/13/2010 | MANDATE | ||
| 22 | 04/16/2010 | RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE |