Interest of P.T.D.
2017 ND 248
| N.D. | 2017Background
- A.D. (mother) and T.D. (father) had five children removed after a February 2017 deprivation hearing; the State alleged deprivation under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(8) based on domestic violence, parental substance abuse, controlled substances in the home, T.D.’s suicide attempts, and mental-health concerns.
- The juvenile court heard testimony from the eldest child, relatives, law-enforcement and social-service witnesses, and both parents about living conditions, parenting, drug tests, and the youngest child’s medical issues.
- The juvenile court’s written findings noted A.D.’s recent positive methamphetamine tests, A.D.’s sleeping late leaving the eldest child to care for siblings, repeated law-enforcement domestic-violence responses, T.D.’s suicide attempts, and that the youngest child did better with his grandmother; the court also made contradictory oral findings about the youngest child’s medical cause.
- The court found the children deprived by clear and convincing evidence, ordered removal on February 13, 2017, and placed children with paternal grandparents and foster care; custody was later returned to the parents on April 28, 2017.
- A.D. appealed, arguing the juvenile court erred in finding deprivation and failed to make required findings of “exceptional circumstances” for placing children with nonparents; the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction because the removal days could affect future termination proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court’s findings supported a deprivation finding under § 27-20-02(8) | A.D. argued the evidence did not support deprivation and findings were insufficient | State/Appellee argued the record (drug tests, domestic violence, mental-health incidents, child testimony) supported deprivation | Court held the written findings were general/conclusory and failed to connect asserted facts to deprivation; remanded for adequate findings under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) |
| Whether the court must find “exceptional circumstances” to place children with relatives or social services | A.D. contended exceptional circumstances were required (relying on domestic relations authority) | State argued placement of deprived children under § 27-20-30 does not require exceptional-circumstances finding | Court held exceptional-circumstances finding not required for placement under § 27-20-30; different standard from domestic-relations law |
| Whether oral findings can cure inadequate written findings | A.D. argued written findings were controlling and inadequate | State relied on oral findings to supply factual basis | Court held written findings control, oral findings may explain but did not cure insufficiency here; remand required |
| Standard of review for juvenile court findings | A.D. argued errors in application | State relied on deference to juvenile court credibility findings | Court reiterated clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review principles, but found remand necessary due to inadequate factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.T., 2004 ND 138, 681 N.W.2d 779 (discussing use of oral findings to explain written findings)
- In re J.R., 2002 ND 78, 643 N.W.2d 699 (defining “proper parental care” as community’s minimum standards)
- In re B.B., 2010 ND 9, 777 N.W.2d 350 (appellate review and deference to juvenile court findings)
- Interest of J.A.H., 2014 ND 196, 855 N.W.2d 394 (remanding for specific findings where written findings were conclusory)
- Akerlind v. Buck, 2003 ND 169, 671 N.W.2d 256 (standard for clear-error review of findings)
- Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul v. Lillehaugen, 404 N.W.2d 452 (written findings prevail over conflicting oral rulings)
- Hamers v. Guttormson, 2000 ND 93, 610 N.W.2d 758 (difference between custody standards under domestic-relations law and deprivation/juvenile statute)