2025 ND 127
N.D.2025Background
- C.C. is the mother of two children, B.F. and I.F., who were placed in protective custody with Cass County Human Service Zone (CHSZ) in November 2022 due to concerns of parental abandonment.
- CHSZ originally sought to terminate both parents’ rights, but later amended its petition, temporarily extending custody of the children due to C.C.'s progress on a reunification plan.
- In October 2024, CHSZ re-petitioned to terminate C.C.’s parental rights, alleging her failure to address barriers to reunification, including unstable housing, unaddressed addiction and mental health issues, and inconsistent visitation.
- C.C. missed a critical status conference in February 2025, prompting the court to find her in default and terminate her parental rights, based largely on evidence submitted by affidavit and testimony at that hearing.
- C.C. moved to vacate the default judgment; the motion was denied by the court (and upheld by a district judge), leading to her appeal.
Issues
| Issue | C.C.'s Argument | CHSZ/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was finding C.C. in default and terminating her rights proper? | Default and termination were improper; presence excused. | C.C. failed to appear; court had discretion to proceed. | Default and termination proper if criteria met. |
| Was denial of motion to vacate default judgment an abuse? | She had excusable neglect; standards under civil rules. | Vacate standard in juvenile rules not met. | No abuse; result same under correct rule. |
| Was reliance on affidavit alone clear and convincing evidence? | Affidavit insufficient for clear and convincing standard. | Court can rely on properly admitted affidavit evidence. | Affidavit evidence permissible if admitted. |
| Did default judgment violate due process? | Due process violated by terminating rights on default. | Proper notice, counsel present; due process met. | No due process violation; notice, counsel present. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.P., 4 N.W.3d 232 (N.D. 2024) (clear and convincing evidence standard and evidentiary admissions in parental rights cases)
- In re J.C., 2 N.W.3d 228 (N.D. 2024) (court’s discretion in parental termination and applicability of procedural rules)
- In re M.R., 870 N.W.2d 175 (N.D. 2015) (discretion to proceed and enter default when parent fails to appear)
- In re R.L.-P., 842 N.W.2d 889 (N.D. 2014) (affirmation of trial court discretion in termination proceedings)
- Discover Bank v. Bolinske, 950 N.W.2d 417 (N.D. 2020) (reviewing denial of motion to set aside for abuse of discretion)
- Schmidt v. City of Minot, 883 N.W.2d 909 (N.D. 2016) (correct result affirmed even if reasoning incorrect)