Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed an order terminating S.D.'s parental rights to two children. The court held that Cass County's concurrent planning process did not violate S.D.'s due process rights, that the juvenile court provided a fair hearing, and that clear and convincing evidence supported termination based on continuing deprivation and likely harm. The court also upheld the admission of S.D.'s criminal convictions and the testimony of one of the children.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence established that the children were deprived, that the conditions and causes of deprivation were likely to continue or not be remedied, and that the children would probably suffer serious harm if parental rights were not terminated.
- Whether Cass County's concurrent-planning practices under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-32.2 violated S.D.'s procedural or substantive due process rights.
- Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by allowing the State to amend the termination petition on the morning of trial.
- Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of S.D.'s prior criminal convictions.
- Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by allowing N.H. to testify despite the lack of prior listing or interview opportunity.
Holdings
- Clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that the children were deprived, that the conditions and causes of deprivation were likely to continue or not be remedied, and that the children would probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm if S.D.'s parental rights were not terminated.
- Concurrent planning under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-32.2, as applied by Cass County Social Services, did not violate S.D.'s procedural or substantive due process rights.
- Allowing the State to amend the petition on the morning of trial did not warrant reversal because the juvenile court did not rely on the added foster-care ground and the amendment had no consequence to the termination decision.
- The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of S.D.'s criminal convictions because the convictions were relevant to deprivation and its likely continuation and were not unfairly prejudicial.
- The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by allowing N.H. to testify despite her absence from the witness list and the attorneys' lack of an interview opportunity.
Key quotations
“Long-term and intensive treatment for a parent is not required if it cannot be successfully undertaken in time to enable the children to be returned to the parental home without causing severe dislocation from emotional attachments formed during long-term foster care.” (632 N.W.2d at 456)
“Cass County Social Services continued to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family, concurrent with proceeding in a timely manner to finalize the permanent placement of the child.” (632 N.W.2d at 457)
Factual background
S.D. and R.H. had a lengthy child-protection history involving incarceration, alcohol and chemical abuse, domestic violence, and neglectful parenting. Their children, N.H. and B.H., had been living in a foster placement since 1997 and had previously been adjudicated deprived. S.D. was incarcerated during the termination proceedings and had violated parole after release, while professional evidence indicated that her personality traits, substance-dependence disorders, and parenting deficiencies were likely to continue. Cass County Social Services pursued reunification services while concurrently planning for permanent placement.
Procedural history
The State petitioned to terminate the parental rights of S.D. and R.H. after the children had been in shelter care and foster placement. Following a four-day hearing, the juvenile court terminated both parents' rights on September 15, 2000. S.D. appealed; R.H. did not appeal. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.