Interest of A.D., 966 N.W.2d 540

In June 2020 A.D.’s aunt and uncle petitioned for guardianship, alleging A.D. was a "deprived" child; both parents opposed.
A judicial referee held a trial, found A.D. deprived by abandonment, and granted guardianship; the father sought district-court review.
The district judge adopted the referee’s findings; the father appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key factual findings: father had no meaningful contact or care for A.D. since about 2007–2008, made no sustained effort to locate or assume custody, and made a single attempted phone contact in 2019 which the child rebuffed.
A.D. testified the father had committed severe domestic violence against her mother, that she feared him, did not know him, did not want to live with him, and is bonded to and feels safe with the aunt and uncle.
The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that A.D. was abandoned by the parents, the aunt and uncle were fit guardians, and the guardianship was in A.D.’s best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.D. was a "deprived" child by abandonment	Father: the court erred; he was not abandoned	Petitioners: father had no contact or support for years and made no serious efforts to parent	Court: Finding of abandonment supported by clear and convincing evidence; not clearly erroneous
Whether the court failed to address statutory best-interest factors	Father: court did not explicitly apply § 14-09-06.2 factors	Petitioners: the court’s findings (child preference, lack of parental care, safety, bonding with guardians) show consideration of factors	Court: Specific recitation of each factor not required; findings sufficient to show best-interest analysis
Whether a finding of "exceptional circumstances" was required to grant guardianship to non-parents	Father: exceptional-circumstances finding required before awarding custody to third party	Petitioners: where child is deprived, deprivation statute governs and eliminates need for exceptional-circumstances finding	Court: Exceptional-circumstances not required when child is found deprived by the parents; deprivation supplies the statutory basis for placement
Whether district court properly treated referee findings and standard of review	Father: challenges referee findings	Petitioners: district court adopted referee findings under de novo review authority	Court: District judge adopted referee findings as its own; appellate review is for clear error and none shown

In re J.A.H., 855 N.W.2d 394 (referee findings are recommendations; district judge is ultimate factfinder)
In re Adoption of H.G.C., 761 N.W.2d 565 (lists factors relevant to abandonment analysis)
Interest of G.L., 915 N.W.2d 685 (discusses exceptional-circumstances requirement in custody disputes between parents and third parties)
In re R.K., 646 N.W.2d 699 (reversed placement with third parties where deprivation was not found as to both parents nor were exceptional circumstances shown)
Worden v. Worden, 434 N.W.2d 341 (custody/divorce context; explains limits of non-deprivation proceedings and role of deprivation statutes)
In re Guardianship of J.O., 958 N.W.2d 149 (addressed guardianship extension; noted exceptional-circumstances discussion in dictum)
State v. P.K., 951 N.W.2d 254 (courts’ findings are adequate if they disclose factual basis and afford understanding of decision)