Cass County Social Service Center v. N.M.
801 N.W.2d 416
N.D.2011Background
- N.M. and M.M. are parents of four children: K.B. (born 2007), W.M. and J.M. (twins, born 2008), and P.M. (born 2010).
- W.M. sustained serious injuries in November 2008; treating doctors concluded injuries were non-accidental and consistent with shaken baby syndrome, with the parents as the only caregivers during the relevant period.
- K.B., W.M., and J.M. were adjudicated deprived in May 2009 and placed with Cass County Social Services for reunification efforts.
- A termination petition was filed in March–May 2010 to terminate parental rights to all four children; the parents consented to termination of rights to W.M. and J.M. at trial start.
- The referee and juvenile court found the children deprived, the deprivation likely to continue, and substantial risk of serious harm absent termination.
- The parents challenge only the findings as to K.B. and P.M.; they do not contest the deprivation of the twins.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are K.B. and P.M. deprived children? | K.B. and P.M. remain deprived due to ongoing parental deficits. | Evidence shows some improvement and that deprivation as to K.B./P.M. abated or is not proven. | Yes; the court did not clearly err in deprivation findings for K.B. and P.M. |
| Did W.M.'s injuries establish deprivation facts for the others? | W.M.'s non-accidental injuries and parents’ role support ongoing deprivation. | Injuries alone do not prove ongoing deprivation for all; need prognostic evidence. | Declined to reverse; injuries support deprivation in context of overall findings. |
| Was the special-needs status of W.M. and J.M. improperly used to negate deprivation for K.B. and P.M.? | Special needs do not excuse ongoing parental incapacity for sibling deprivation. | Special needs justify considering varying care standards; may affect expectations for K.B./P.M. | No; special-needs considerations do not negate findings for K.B. and P.M. |
| Did the court err by considering parental cooperation and service participation as proof of ongoing deprivation? | Lack of sustained cooperation indicates deprivation is likely to continue. | Participation and efforts show potential for improvement; deprivation not proven. | No; management and cooperation deficits supported continuing deprivation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of J.S.L., 763 N.W.2d 783 (ND 2009) (clear and convincing standard; deprivation framework)
- Interest of K.J., 779 N.W.2d 635 (ND 2010) (deprivation elements and prognostic evidence)
- Interest of E.R., 688 N.W.2d 384 (ND 2004) (need for prognostic evidence and future risk)
- Interest of L.F., 580 N.W.2d 573 (ND 1998) (prognostic evidence and dependency on future likelihood)
- Interest of A.B., 792 N.W.2d 539 (ND 2010) (cooperation with services as factor in deprivation)
- Interest of K.S., 652 N.W.2d 341 (ND 2002) (predecessor on depravation findings and judicial notice limits)