Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed an order terminating the parental rights of C.P. and R.L. to their two children. The court held that clear and convincing evidence established deprivation, that the conditions causing deprivation were likely to continue or not be remedied, and that continued parental custody would likely cause serious harm. The court also held that unsupported assertions about possible tribal eligibility did not trigger notice requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to continue the termination proceeding for further inquiry and notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
- Whether clear and convincing evidence established that the children were deprived, that the causes and conditions of deprivation were likely to continue or would not be remedied, and that the children would probably suffer serious harm if parental rights were not terminated.
- Whether evidence of the children's adoptability and the children's best interests was required to support termination of parental rights.
Holdings
- The juvenile court did not err in declining to invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act because the parent produced no evidence establishing that the children were members of an Indian tribe or eligible for membership in one; unsupported and vague counsel statements about possible Indian ancestry and enrollment were insufficient.
- Termination was proper because clear and convincing evidence established that the children were deprived, the circumstances causing deprivation were likely to continue or would not be remedied, and the children had suffered or would probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm if parental rights were not terminated.
- Adoptability of the children is not part of the necessary proof for termination of parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(1)(b), although the children's best interests may be an important factor.
Key quotations
“Before the notice provisions of the I.C.W.A. apply, the court must know or have reason to know an “Indian child” is involved.” (¶ 9, 420-421)
“Although evidence of past deprivation alone is not sufficient to terminate parental rights, evidence of the parents’ background, including previous abuse or deprivation, may be considered in determining whether deprivation is likely to continue.” (¶ 14, 423)
“Issues about adoptability of the children, however, are not part of the necessary proof for the termination of parental rights.” (¶ 17, 424)
Factual background
C.P. and R.L. were the parents of A.L. and J.L. The family had a nearly decade-long history of domestic violence, chemical and alcohol abuse, inadequate supervision, repeated child-protection assessments, and foster-care placements. Despite social services and multiple service contracts, the parents showed little meaningful change, and the children were placed in foster care in February 1999 after C.P. reported that the home was unstable.
Procedural history
After the children had been the subject of repeated child-protection assessments and foster-care placements, the State petitioned to terminate both parents' rights. A judicial referee recommended termination, and the juvenile court adopted the recommendation. The parents separately appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which affirmed.