958 N.W.2d 149
N.D.2021Background
- In October 2017 J.O.’s maternal grandparents, L.O. and S.O., were appointed permanent guardians after parents left J.O. in their care and failed to provide food, shelter, or medical attention; the juvenile court noted pending criminal matters and suspended parental custody.
- The grandparents were also appointed guardians of I.E. (a stepsibling); I.E. later returned to the parents and the guardianship over I.E. was terminated.
- In March 2020 the parents filed to terminate the guardianship over J.O.; a default termination was vacated and a hearing was set per statutory requirements.
- At the hearing J.O. said he wanted to remain with his grandparents and did not want contact with his mother; mother (K.M.E.) testified she is sober and living in a three‑bedroom apartment with other children.
- The juvenile court took judicial notice of parents’ criminal histories, found the parents’ sobriety was of short duration and credibility was undermined by past convictions, concluded K.M.E. failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the circumstances giving rise to the guardianship no longer exist, and extended the guardianship for up to three years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of I.E.’s guardianship creates a presumption that conditions for J.O.’s guardianship no longer exist | K.M.E.: termination of I.E.’s guardianship creates a presumption that the underlying issues have been remedied | Guardians: no legal basis for cross-guardianship presumption; each guardianship is fact‑specific | No presumption; court refused to recognize a factual presumption from one guardianship termination to another |
| Whether the juvenile court erred in assigning the burden of proof to the parent seeking termination | K.M.E.: (argued in brief) court improperly placed burden on parent; later conceded at argument | Guardians: statutory scheme places burden on petitioner to prove termination by clear and convincing evidence | Court correctly placed burden on petitioner under N.D.C.C.; petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether court needed to (a) re‑find "exceptional circumstances" to continue guardianship and (b) expressly state "good cause" to extend guardianship up to three years | K.M.E.: Worden requires a new exceptional‑circumstances finding before a third party may retain custody; statute requires a finding of good cause to extend beyond one year and court failed to say those words | Guardians: exceptional circumstances were already found at initial appointment in 2017; factual findings about ongoing instability and sobriety concerns satisfy the statutory "good cause" requirement without magic words | (a) No new exceptional‑circumstances finding required because it was made at initial guardianship appointment. (b) No need to use the literal phrase "good cause"; the court’s factual findings about sobriety and instability satisfied the good‑cause standard and justified a three‑year extension |
Key Cases Cited
- Worden v. Worden, 434 N.W.2d 341 (N.D. 1989) (establishes "exceptional circumstances" inquiry before awarding custody to third party over a natural parent)
- Guardianship of P.T., 857 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 2014) (appellate standard of review for juvenile court findings; deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In Interest of B.G., 477 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1991) (describing effect of presumptions and burden‑shifting principles)
- Frith v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins., 845 N.W.2d 892 (N.D. 2014) (issues inadequately briefed where appellant cites no supporting authority)
- Akerlind v. Buck, 671 N.W.2d 256 (N.D. 2003) (definition of "clearly erroneous" standard for factual findings)