Interest of G.V., 985 N.W.2d 655

Maternal grandmother C.B. petitioned for guardianship of her grandchildren G.V. (8) and S.V. (4); a judicial referee granted guardianship for three years and restricted parental visitation, and the juvenile court adopted that order on de novo review.
The children have lived primarily with C.B. their entire lives except a three-month period in Florida; the parents (R.F., mother; S.V., father) have been intermittently absent and lived in Florida at the time of the hearing.
Both parents have significant criminal histories and recent incarcerations (R.F. had an outstanding warrant and prior jail time; S.V. had been incarcerated for 18 months and was recently released).
Parents expressed preference for the children to live in Florida with the paternal grandmother, but that relative did not pursue guardianship and at one point asked C.B. to take the children due to inability to provide a safe home.
The juvenile court found the children were "in need of protection," that guardianship by C.B. served the children’s best interests, that good cause supported a three-year guardianship term, and that visitation restrictions were warranted due to exceptional circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether children are "in need of protection" under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.1-01(3)(a)	R.F./S.V.: Court erred; parents dispute lack of proper care finding	C.B.: Parents have been absent, unstable, and incarcerated; children lacked a primary parental caregiver	Court: Finding supported by record; not clearly erroneous — children are in need of protection
Whether guardianship is in children’s best interest (N.D.C.C. § 27-20.1-11 applying § 14-09-06.2 factors)	R.F./S.V.: Insufficient evidence that guardianship is best for children	C.B.: Has been stable primary caregiver, provides for needs, parents are unstable/criminally involved	Court: Best-interest findings supported; guardianship affirmed
Whether three-year guardianship term required "good cause"	R.F./S.V.: Court should not extend beyond one year absent stronger showing	C.B.: Parents’ criminal history, instability, and potential future incarceration justify extension	Court: Good cause proven (legally sufficient reason); three-year term upheld
Whether visitation restrictions and delegation of visitation discretion were proper	R.F./S.V.: Visitation restriction/delegation improper; parents object	C.B.: Exceptional circumstances—flight risk, prior attempts to remove children, ongoing criminal matters	Court: Exceptional circumstances found; visitation restrictions upheld

Interest of Guardianship of A.D., 2021 ND 205, 966 N.W.2d 540 (discussing de novo review and juvenile court adoption of referee findings)
In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Thomas, 2006 ND 219, 723 N.W.2d 384 (standard for abuse of discretion)
In re Guardianship of P.T., 2014 ND 223, 857 N.W.2d 367 (review of juvenile court factual findings)
In re C.R., 1999 ND 221, 602 N.W.2d 520 (parent presently incapable supports finding child in need of protection)
Interest of A.L.E., 2018 ND 257, 920 N.W.2d 461 (considering parental incarceration in need-of-protection analysis)
Interest of Guardianship of J.O., 2021 ND 76, 958 N.W.2d 149 (defining "good cause" to extend guardianship)
Paulson v. Paulson, 2005 ND 72, 694 N.W.2d 681 (standard for visitation restriction; endangerment by preponderance)
Wigginton v. Wigginton, 2005 ND 31, 692 N.W.2d 108 (upholding visitation restriction based on parent’s drug history)
Taylor v. Taylor, 2022 ND 39, 970 N.W.2d 209 (delegation of visitation discretion only in exceptional circumstances)