[¶ 1] W.R., the father, appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to the child, G.R. W.R. argues the juvenile court erred in finding the causes and conditions of the deprivation were likely to continue and finding the termination of his parental rights was necessary to avoid serious physical, mеntal, or emotional harm to the child. We affirm.
I
[¶2] The child was born on April 2, 2008. The child’s parents lived in Illinois at the time of her birth, but the child and her mother later moved to North Dakota. On March 31, 2012, the child was removed from the mother’s home and LaMoure County Social Services placed her in foster сare. On September 6, 2012, social services placed the child with W.R. in Illinois for a home study, but the placement was terminated on November 29, 2012.
[¶ 3] On May 20, 2013, the State petitioned to terminate W.R.’s parental rights. A termination hearing was held on September 19, 2013. The State offered testimony from a number of witnesses, includ
[¶ 4] On October 15, 2013, the juvenile court granted the petition and terminated W.R.’s parental rights. The court found the child was deprived and the deprivation was likely to continue, because W.R. has shown an inability to provide stable housing and care for the child and himself, he has a lengthy criminal history with multiple periods of incarceration, he has consistently shown a disregard for rules, and his inability to provide a stable home and care for the child is likely to continue. The court also found reasonable efforts were made to prevent the removal of the child from the home, it was contrary to the child’s welfare to return to W.R.’s home, and termination was in the child’s best interests.
II
[¶ 5] Section 27-20-44(1), N.D.C.C., authorizes a juvenile court to terminаte a person’s parental rights if “[t]he child is a deprived child and the court finds ... [t]he conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied and that by reason thereof the child is suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional hаrm[.]” The petitioner must establish all of the elements for termination by clear and convincing evidence.
In re A.L.,
[¶ 6] On appeal, we will not overturn a juvenile court’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous.
C.N.,
A
[¶ 7] W.R. argues there was not clear and convinсing evidence the conditions and causes of the deprivation were likely to continue.
[¶ 8] The petitioner must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child is deprived and that the causes and conditions of deprivation are likely to continue. N.D.C.C. § 27 — 20—44(l)(c)(l);
see also C.N.,
Is without proper рarental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals, and the deprivation is not due primarily to the lack of financial means of the child’s parents, guardian, or other custodian....
N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(8)(a). A parent’s conduct in raising their child must satisfy the minimum standard of care the community will tolerate.
In re K.B.,
[¶ 9] Evidence of past dеprivation is not enough to determine whether the causes and conditions of deprivation
[¶ 10] The juvenile court found the child is deprived and will continue to be deprived if she is returned to W.R.’s custody. The court found W.R. received custody of the child for a short time during a home study, but the short custody had significant negative impacts on the child, including a negative change in her behavior, she exhibited sexualized behavior beyond what a five-year-old child should know, and she was afraid to be left alone at night. The court also found W.R. has shown an inability to provide stable housing, shelter, and care for the child and for himself; he has a consistent twеnty-six-year history of criminal convictions and incarceration; he is currently incarcerated; and he may be released from prison sometime between January 2014 and July 2015. The court found W.R. has consistently shown a disregard for the rules, which is evidenced by his criminal history and his inability to maintain housing. The cоurt found he was given an opportunity for stable housing and employment at a transitional living center in Chicago while the child was in his care, he deliberately broke the living center’s rules, he was removed from the living center, and he and the child became homeless. Based on these findings, the cоurt found:
Failing to provide a consistent home, shelter and care is deprivation and it is likely to continue based on [W.R.’s] history. It is likely that [W.R.] will be incarcerated again after he is released from his current sentence. His significant criminal history reveals that he is incarcerated every few yeаrs for sentences of two or three years. This pattern is consistent for the last approximately 25 years. [W.R.] cannot care for [the child] when he is in prison. [The child] will be deprived because [W-R-] will very likely end up in prison again.
[W.R.] has shown a significant lack of follow through and made no real progress in getting stable housing. [W.R.] has been informed of the obstacles to reunify with [the child]. He has not been consistently involved with social services or consistently in contact with [the child]. [W.R.] has not made any phone calls to [the child] since the end of April 2013. [W.R.] claims he will do whatever is required to get [thе child] back but his words fall flat when compared to his actions — breaking the rules at the living center and being less than candid with social services.
[¶ 11] The record supports the court’s finding that W.R. has been unable to provide the child with a consistent home and care in the past and that the instability is
[¶ 12] The record also supports the court’s finding that W.R. has consistently shown a disregard for rules to the child’s detriment, he has failed to cooperate with social service agencies, and he has not had consistent contact with the child. There was evidence W.R.’s contact with the child was often sporadic and he had not had any contact with the child since April 2013. Ritter testified that social services informed W.R. of the things he needed to do to be reunited with the child, including obtaining a consistent place to live for a period of six months, completing a parenting assessment and following any recommendations, and attending a parenting class. Ritter testified W.R. completed the parenting assessment and class, but he was unable to secure stable housing and continued to move from place to place. There was evidence social services placed the child with W.R. in Illinois on September 6, 2012. Ritter testified that W.R. lost his job and became homeless within two weeks of the child being placed with him, he started moving frоm place to place, and she was not sure where he and the child were at any given time. There was evidence W.R. and the child began living in a transitional living center on October 24, 2012, and the center had a program that provided assistance with employment, child care, and finding a рermanent home. Ritter testified W.R. was evicted from the transitional living center on November 29, 2012, because he violated the program’s rules, and the child had to be removed from his care and placed in a foster home in North Dakota because he and the child were homeless. Ritter testified W.R. was unable to secure consistent employment and was fired from one job after he stole money. The evidence shows W.R. is unable to provide a stable home for the child even with the help of social service agencies and he has not made any progress towаrd reunification with the child. This evidence and the evidence of W.R.’s criminal history shows he consistently disregards rules, which was one of the causes of the deprivation and is evidence the deprivation will continue.
[II13] The opinions of the professionals involved in the case also suppоrt the court’s finding that the deprivation is likely
[¶ 14] Thеre was clear and convincing prognostic evidence the deprivation is likely to continue if W.R.’s rights are not terminated. We conclude the court’s finding that the deprivation is likely to continue is not clearly erroneous.
B
[¶ 15] W.R. argues the juvenile court erred in finding there was clear and cоnvincing evidence termination was necessary to avoid serious physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child.
[¶ 16] Upon a showing that the child is deprived and the causes and conditions of deprivation are likely to continue, the petitioner must also prove the child is suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm. N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(l)(c)(l);
see also A.B.,
[¶ 17] The juvenile court did not explicitly find the child is suffering or will likely suffer serious harm in the future. However, the court addressed this element in its other findings.
[¶ 18] The court found it was contrary to the child’s welfare to return to her father’s home. The court said it was not going to speculate about W.R.’s release from incarceration because there were other factors for terminating his rights, including his inability to secure employment and housing, his consistent disregard for the rules, his criminal history, and the likelihood that he will be incarcerated again in the future. The court found W.R. cannot care for the child when he is incarcerated and the child would become homeless every time W.R. became homeless if she were in his custody. The court’s findings indicate the child would likely spend a significant amount of time in foster care if W.R.’s parental rights were not terminated, which would make her successful assimilation into a family improbable. The court found the child would likely suffer serious harm in the future if W.R.’s rights were not terminated and the evidence supports the finding.
[¶ 19] The court also made findings about harm the child has already suffered. The cоurt found the child was negatively impacted by the time she spent in W.R.’s care and there was a negative change in the child’s behavior after she returned to the foster home, including that she exhibited sexualized behavior beyond what any five-year-old child should know and she was often afraid to be аlone at night. Rit-ter testified G.R. exhibited sexualized behaviors and was afraid to go to bed at night after she returned from staying with W.R. The child’s foster parent also testified that the child exhibited some sexual-ized behaviors after staying with W.R. She also testified the child was very afraid that she would be left alone at night bеcause her father left her alone at night on one occasion and it took the child months to realize she would not be left alone. The child’s counselor testified she began seeing the child because the child showed some
[¶ 20] The court implicitly found that the child is suffering and will probably suffer serious harm if W.R.’s rights are not terminated. We conclude thеre was clear and convincing evidence supporting the court’s findings, and the findings are not clearly erroneous.
Ill
[¶ 21] We conclude the court’s findings are not clearly erroneous, and we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating W.R.’s parental rights.