Interest of G.R., 2014 ND 32

Child G.R., born 2008; removed from mother's home and placed in foster care March 31, 2012; brief placement with father W.R. in Illinois Sept–Nov 2012 ended when placement was terminated.
State filed petition to terminate W.R.’s parental rights May 20, 2013; termination hearing Sept 19, 2013. W.R. testified; social worker, counselor, foster parent, and guardian ad litem also testified.
Juvenile court found G.R. deprived, termination warranted because causes and conditions of deprivation were likely to continue and reunification would risk serious harm. Court emphasized W.R.’s long criminal history, repeated incarcerations, inability to maintain stable housing/employment, rule violations at transitional housing, and sporadic contact with the child.
Evidence included W.R.’s 25‑year pattern of convictions and incarcerations, eviction from a transitional living program (leading to homelessness and removal of the child), the child’s post-placement sexualized behaviors and fear of being left alone, and professional opinions that the child suffered trauma and would likely suffer further harm if returned.
Juvenile court terminated W.R.’s parental rights Oct 15, 2013; father appealed, arguing insufficient clear and convincing prognostic evidence that deprivation would continue and that termination was necessary to avoid serious harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (W.R.)	Held
Whether causes and conditions of deprivation are likely to continue	W.R.’s lengthy criminal history, repeated incarcerations, inability to secure stable housing/employment, rule violations, lack of consistent contact, and professional opinions provide clear and convincing prognostic evidence	Past problems do not conclusively show future inability; evidence insufficiently predictive of continued deprivation	Court: Held causes/conditions likely to continue based on pattern of convictions/incarcerations, housing instability, rule violations, and lack of follow‑through (affirmed)
Whether termination is necessary to avoid serious physical, mental, or emotional harm	Child already exhibited sexualized behavior, PTSD symptoms, fear of being left alone; continued instability and likely future incarceration make successful assimilation improbable — termination necessary to avoid further harm	Father contends evidence of future serious harm is speculative; termination not justified without clearer prediction of harm	Court: Held clear and convincing evidence that child suffered harm and would probably suffer serious future harm if returned; termination necessary (affirmed)

In re A.L., 2011 ND 189, 803 N.W.2d 597 (discussing clear‑and‑convincing standard for termination)
In re C.N., 2013 ND 205, 839 N.W.2d 841 (appellate review of juvenile court factfinding; parent must show present or near‑future capacity)
In re K.B., 2011 ND 152, 801 N.W.2d 416 (community’s minimum standard of parental care; background may inform prognosis)
In re K.L. and M.S., 2008 ND 131, 751 N.W.2d 677 (parent must demonstrate present or near‑future capability)
In re A.B., 2010 ND 249, 792 N.W.2d 539 (past conduct may form basis for predicting future deprivation; need prognostic evidence)
In re A.S., 2007 ND 83, 733 N.W.2d 232 (definition of prognostic evidence for future behavior)
In re L.F., 1998 ND 129, 580 N.W.2d 573 (prognostic evidence concept)
In re T.H., 2012 ND 38, 812 N.W.2d 373 (lack of cooperation with social services relevant to likelihood deprivation will continue)