
Filed 2/12/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA







2015 ND 24







In the Interest of D.D., minor child

   -------------

McKenzie County Social Services, 		Petitioner and Appellee



v.



D.D., child; H.D., child; 

C.R., mother; D.D., father, 		Respondents

   -------------

C.R., mother,								      Appellant







No. 20140456







In the Interest of H.D., minor child

   -------------

McKenzie County Social Services, 		Petitioner and Appellee



v.



D.D., child; H.D., child; 

C.R., mother; D.D., father, 		Respondents

   -------------

C.R., mother,								      Appellant







No. 20140457







In the Interest of D.D., minor child

   -------------

McKenzie County Social Services,			      Petitioner and Appellee



          v.



D.D., child; H.D., child;

C.R., mother; D.D., father,						            Respondents

   -------------

D.D., father,								 	      Appellant



_______________________



No. 20140465

_______________________



In the Interest of H.D., minor child

   -------------

McKenzie County Social Services,			      Petitioner and Appellee



          v.



D.D., child; H.D., child;

C.R., mother; D.D., father,						             Respondents

   -------------

D.D., father,									       Appellant



_______________________



No. 20140466

_______________________



Appeals from the Juvenile Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Robin Ann Schmidt, Judge.



AFFIRMED.



Per Curiam.



Charles Burke Neff, Assistant State’s Attorney, 201 5th Street NW, Suite 550, Watford City, ND 58854, for petitioner and appellee.



Ashley Marie Gulke, P.O. Box 931, Minot, ND 58702, for appellant C.R.



Richard Robert William Sand, 340 North Main, P.O. Box 1933, Watford City, ND 58854-1933, for appellant D.D.

Interest of D.D.

Nos. 20140456-20140457 and 20140465-20140466



Per Curiam.

[¶1]	C.R., mother, and D.D., father, of minor children D.D. and H.D., each appeal from the district court amended order terminating their parental rights.  C.R. argues the district court lacked clear and convincing evidence that deprivation was likely to continue and that the children likely would suffer harm absent termination of parental rights.  D.D., father, argues the district court erred when it found the causes of deprivation are likely to continue and that reasonable efforts were made to reunify the family after the children were removed.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).  

[¶2]	Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom



