Interest of J.A.H., 2014 ND 196

Mother M.U. sought help Sept. 6, 2013 alleging she was being stalked; Morton County Social Services obtained temporary custody of her children D.H. (b.1998) and J.A.H. (b.2001).
Shelter care continued after a Sept. 10, 2013 hearing; State petitioned alleging the children were deprived and sought custody up to 12 months.
A factfinding hearing occurred Feb. 19, 2014; social‑services witnesses testified about mother’s repeated interstate moves, concerns about her mental stability, and the children’s wellbeing; guardian ad litem reported the children wished to remain in foster care.
The judicial referee found the children deprived and placed them in county custody through June 30, 2014; the district judge affirmed by adopting the referee’s findings; mother appealed.
The Supreme Court held the juvenile court’s written findings were conclusory, failed to identify specific factual bases from the petition, affidavit, investigator reports, or GAL report, and thus did not permit appellate review of whether deprivation was proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Court remanded with instructions: within 60 days the juvenile court must make expedited, adequate findings of fact addressing whether the children are deprived; jurisdiction retained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (M.U.)	Held
Whether the juvenile court made adequate findings to support a deprivation adjudication	Findings and incorporated records support deprivation by clear and convincing evidence	Findings were general/conclusory and insufficient for appellate review	Findings were inadequate; remand for specific expedited findings within 60 days
Whether the deprivation finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence	Testimony and reports provide sufficient evidence of deprivation	Evidence relied on mother’s purported mental health issues without expert diagnosis — insufficient	Court declined to decide sufficiency because findings were inadequate; remand required for factual detail
Whether expert mental‑health diagnosis is required to rely on mental‑health evidence	Lay and collateral testimony can support conclusions about a parent’s mental stability and its effect on children	A formal psychiatric diagnosis and expert testimony are required to base deprivation on mental health	Court rejected the categorical requirement of expert diagnosis; lay testimony may be sufficient to show impact on children
Whether the district judge properly adopted referee’s findings	District judge adopted the referee’s findings as his own under Admin. R. 13	Adoption does not cure lack of specificity in underlying findings	Adoption occurred, but the ultimate duty is the judge’s; nonetheless, findings lacked specificity and remand is required

In re T.T., 681 N.W.2d 779 (N.D. 2004) (clear and convincing evidence required for deprivation)
In re J.R., 643 N.W.2d 699 (N.D. 2002) ("proper parental care" defined as community minimum standards)
In re B.B., 777 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 2010) (appellate review gives appreciable weight to juvenile court findings; lay testimony can inform prognostic evidence)
Interest of B.F., 764 N.W.2d 170 (N.D. 2009) (district judge reviews referee’s findings de novo and may adopt them)
Interest of T.R.C., 852 N.W.2d 408 (N.D. 2014) (trial courts must make specific findings under Rule 52(a))
Interest of J.S.L., 763 N.W.2d 783 (N.D. 2009) (lay witness observations can constitute sufficient prognostic evidence of mental illness or chemical dependency)
Interest of S.R.B., 830 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 2013) (remand with retained jurisdiction for expedited findings)