950 N.W.2d 186
N.D.2020Background
- Child C.A.R. born 2015; mother M.L.B. filed to terminate father T.D.R.’s parental rights in May 2018, alleging no contact since early 2017 and almost no child support.
- T.D.R. was criminally charged in March 2017 for soliciting a minor, pled guilty in November 2017, and was subject to bond/probation conditions prohibiting contact with minors; his counsel advised no contact during pendency.
- A child support order was entered in August 2017; parties disputed payments before that, but T.D.R. made at least one payment in March 2017 and was found current at the September 2019 hearing.
- The district court found T.D.R. has cerebral palsy limiting him, relied on counsel’s advice and court orders to avoid contact, attempted contact after conviction but was refused by M.L.B., and that pre-order missed payments did not show intent to abandon.
- The court denied termination, concluding T.D.R.’s lack of contact was justified and overall actions did not demonstrate abandonment; the Supreme Court affirmed for lack of abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether T.D.R. abandoned C.A.R. under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-01(1) (failure to communicate or provide support without justifiable cause) | M.L.B.: T.D.R. had no contact ~15 months and largely failed to pay support, showing abandonment. | T.D.R.: Lack of contact was justified by bond/probation and counsel’s advice; support obligations changed with the August 2017 order and he was substantially compliant and current at trial. | Court: No abandonment. Lack of contact was justified; pre-order payment gaps did not prove intent to abandon; denial of termination affirmed (no abuse of discretion). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of I.R.R., 839 N.W.2d 846 (N.D. 2013) (lists factors for determining abandonment: contact, care, intent, acceptance of parental obligations)
- In re Adoption of H.G.C., 761 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 2009) (sets clear-and-convincing proof standard for termination)
- Matter of C.D.G.E., 889 N.W.2d 863 (N.D. 2017) (statutory use of "may" gives court discretion to terminate parental rights)
- Matter of Adoption of K.S.H., 442 N.W.2d 417 (N.D. 1989) ("may" is permissive; termination decisions are discretionary)
- Anderson v. Baker, 871 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 2015) (explains abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing discretionary rulings)