Interest of K.L., a Child; Interest of M.S., a Child

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed an order terminating T.L.'s parental rights to her two children. The court held that clear and convincing evidence established the children were deprived, the conditions of deprivation were likely to continue, and the children would probably suffer serious harm. The court also recognized ineffective assistance of counsel claims in parental-rights termination proceedings under the Strickland standard, but concluded the record did not establish deficient performance or prejudice.

Holdings

1. Termination of parental rights was proper because the children were deprived, the causes and conditions of deprivation were likely to continue, and the children would probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm, all established by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Social Services made reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family; it was required to provide appropriate and available services and assistance, but was not required to assume T.L.'s responsibility to follow through with those services.
3. North Dakota recognizes an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in parental-rights termination proceedings and applies the Strickland standard.
4. T.L. did not establish ineffective assistance because the record did not show objectively unreasonable performance or prejudice, and counsel's decision not to introduce evidence of a second treatment program could have been a reasonable strategic choice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence established that the children were deprived, that the conditions and causes of deprivation were likely to continue or would not be remedied, and that the children would probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm.
2. Whether Social Services made reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family.
3. Whether North Dakota recognizes an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in parental-rights termination proceedings and, if so, whether T.L. established such a claim on direct appeal.

Disposition

affirmed