Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of J.E.’s petition to terminate A.P.’s parental rights to their child. Although the court concluded A.P. had validly consented to termination, it held the district court did not abuse its discretion because J.E. failed to establish that denying the petition would seriously affect the child’s welfare.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that A.P. did not validly consent to termination of her parental rights.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the petition after a statutory ground for termination had been established, where J.E. did not show that denial of the petition would seriously affect the child's welfare.
Holdings
- The district court clearly erred in finding that A.P. did not validly consent. Her signed affidavit acknowledged that she knew she had a right to legal counsel, and her testimony that she remained willing to pay child support contradicted the finding that she probably would not have consented had she known of her continuing support obligation.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition because J.E. failed to establish that denying termination would seriously affect the child's welfare.
Key quotations
“Only if this elevated standard of proof is met does the district court have discretion under the statute to consider whether termination of parental rights would promote the child’s welfare.” (¶ 4)
“Where at least one of the required factors is present, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a parental-termination petition unless the petitioner establishes that denying the petition would seriously affect the child’s welfare.” (¶ 10)
Factual background
C.D.G.E. was born in 2010, and J.E. had primary residential responsibility for the child since 2014. A.P. was obligated to pay monthly child support and was in arrears. J.E. petitioned to terminate A.P.'s parental rights, submitting an affidavit in which A.P. consented to termination. At the hearing, J.E. alleged abandonment and consent, but offered no personal observations or expert testimony showing that A.P.'s inconsistent presence had caused the child serious harm or that termination would improve the child's welfare.
Procedural history
J.E. petitioned the district court to terminate A.P.'s parental rights based on abandonment and written consent. The district court found that A.P. had not validly consented and denied the petition, concluding that terminating her parental rights would not serve the child's welfare. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the district court clearly erred in finding no valid consent but affirmed because J.E. failed to establish that denying termination would seriously affect the child's welfare.