Interest of A.B., 898 N.W.2d 676

Two children (born Dec 2014 and Dec 2015) were removed after social workers found the home filthy and unsanitary (cat urine/feces near infant bassinet); children placed together in foster care and remained there.
Grant County Social Services required cleaning or suitable housing, parental capacity evaluation, parenting classes, supervised visitation, and cooperation with a guardian ad litem; the parents completed some services but made limited progress.
Parental capacity testing found both parents lacked necessary parenting skills; the father was suspicious of social services and declined some monitoring (e.g., electronic doll).
The parents’ housing instability and sporadic contact/attendance at supervised visits hindered reunification; social services provided financial assistance, motel stays, phone minutes, and offered in‑home parent aide (which the father rejected).
The State filed petitions to terminate parental rights; the juvenile court denied termination on aggravated‑circumstances grounds but terminated both parents’ rights under N.D.C.C. § 27‑20‑44(1)(c)(1) (and for the son also under § 27‑20‑44(1)(c)(2)). The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved grounds to terminate under § 27‑20‑44(1)(c)(1) — child deprived, causes likely to continue, and likely serious harm	State: prior deprivation, lack of parenting skills, unsanitary home, instability, and lack of cooperation provide prognostic evidence of continued deprivation and likely harm	Father: he and mother completed counseling and made progress; only harm is bond with foster parents and disruption from removal	Held: Affirmed. Clear and convincing evidence supported deprivation, likelihood causes will continue, and probable serious harm.
Whether Grant County Social Services used reasonable efforts to reunify under § 27‑20‑32.2	State: provided services, financial assistance, evaluations, classes, supervised visits, parent aide, and tried multiple programs	Father: argued social services failed to use reasonable efforts	Held: Affirmed. Court’s findings that Social Services used appropriate and available resources were not clearly erroneous; father’s failure to cooperate was not Social Services’ fault.

In re A.B., 2010 ND 249, 792 N.W.2d 539 (2010) (past conduct may form basis for prognosis of future parenting; risk of future harm can rest on prognostic evidence)
In re A.L., 2011 ND 189, 803 N.W.2d 597 (2011) (termination requires clear and convincing proof of statutory elements; appellate review standard)
In re C.N., 2013 ND 205, 839 N.W.2d 841 (2013) (definition of clear and convincing evidence and standards for parental capability)
In re K.B., 2011 ND 152, 801 N.W.2d 416 (2011) (parent must meet community minimum parenting standards; background can inform prognosis)
In re K.L. and M.S., 2008 ND 131, 751 N.W.2d 677 (2008) (parent’s failure to use offered services is not imputed to social services)
In re J.S.L., 2009 ND 43, 763 N.W.2d 783 (2009) (children need stability; courts may terminate rather than leave children in prolonged uncertainty)
In Interest of R.L.-P., 2014 ND 28, 842 N.W.2d 889 (2014) (reasonable‑efforts findings reviewed for clear error)