Guardianship of P.T., 2014 ND 223

Burleigh County petitioned (Apr 5, 2013) to terminate R.P. and J.P.’s guardianship of five grandchildren, alleging deprivation and that the children had been in foster care the requisite length of time.
Combined hearing held on termination of guardianship and parental rights; parents did not appear; social workers, the guardians, and children testified.
A judicial referee found the children deprived, that causes of deprivation were likely to continue, the children had been in foster care for well over the statutory threshold, and termination of guardianship was in the children’s best interests.
The district court, acting as juvenile court, reviewed de novo, adopted the referee’s findings, and expressly incorporated the State’s post‑hearing brief analysis of best‑interests into its order.
Guardians R.P. and J.P. argued they proved by a preponderance that guardianship should continue (claiming ability to care, completion of a class, and some children’s desire to return).
The juvenile court terminated the guardianship; the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding findings were not clearly erroneous and that applying the current best‑interests factors would not change the result.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juvenile court erred in terminating guardianship on best‑interests ground	State: record (affidavits, GAL reports, testimony) shows instability, abuse disclosures, lack of cooperation — termination is in children’s best interests	R.P./J.P.: they can care for children, completed services, some children want return; guardianship should continue	Affirmed — court’s findings not clearly erroneous; termination supported by evidence
Whether guardians met burden to show guardianship should continue (preponderance)	Guardians: demonstrated fitness and completed class; some family ties persist	State: guardians failed to cooperate with services, infrequent visits, allegations of physical/sexual/emotional abuse persist	Held for State — guardians did not meet burden; factors weigh against continuation
Whether district court may adopt litigant’s proposed best‑interests analysis by reference	State: adoption acceptable here; incorporated brief’s analysis	Guardians: implied procedural unfairness; court should make its own findings	Court cautioned against practice but accepted result; adoption not reversible error where record supports outcome
Whether use of an outdated statutory version of best‑interests factors was reversible error	Guardians: adoption of wrong statutory factors undermines analysis	State: result would be same under current statute	Held — harmless error; correct result would obtain under current law

In re T.T., 2004 ND 138, 681 N.W.2d 779 (standard for reversing juvenile court factual findings)
Akerlind v. Buck, 2003 ND 169, 671 N.W.2d 256 (definition of clearly erroneous)
In re B.B., 2010 ND 9, 777 N.W.2d 350 (appellate review gives appreciable weight to juvenile court findings)
In re Guardianship of Barros, 2005 ND 122, 701 N.W.2d 402 (best‑interests factors apply in guardianship proceedings)
Interest of J.A.H., 2014 ND 196, 855 N.W.2d 394 (district judge must review judicial referee decision de novo)
Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 169, 788 N.W.2d 312 (harmless error doctrine in appellate review)