Interest of F.S., M.S., Jr., and M.S., 2017 ND 230

Ward County filed petitions in Feb 2016 to terminate K.S.’s parental rights to three children, alleging continuing deprivation due to parental addiction, domestic violence, unstable housing/employment, legal issues, and inconsistent parenting.
A termination hearing occurred June 13–14, 2017; multiple witnesses testified about drug use, domestic violence, and K.S.’s treatment lapses.
K.S. submitted a post-hearing brief; the court had not yet issued a final order and gave the State time to respond.
On June 24, 2017, K.S. suffered a heroin overdose; she was found unconscious with a needle and required Narcan; she was later charged with possession.
Ward County moved on June 26 to reopen the record for a supplemental evidentiary hearing about the overdose; K.S. opposed. The juvenile court granted the motion, held a supplemental hearing, and later terminated parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by reopening the record after the main termination hearing	State: Reopening was appropriate because new, directly relevant facts (the overdose) came to light before a final order	K.S.: Court should not have reopened the record; reopening prejudicial after trial	The court did not abuse its discretion; reopening was proper because the court had not yet entered a final order and the overdose evidence was material to future parenting ability

Leno v. Ehli, 339 N.W.2d 92 (N.D. 1983) (district courts have broad discretion to permit reopening of a case for additional proof)
Vandal v. Leno, 843 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 2014) (discussing limits on reopening where party could have procured evidence before trial)
State v. Gipp, 833 N.W.2d 541 (N.D. 2013) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings uses abuse-of-discretion standard)