Interest of R.L.-P., 2014 ND 28

Background

Three children (born 2004, 2006, 2007) were removed from the mother’s home on January 4, 2011 after a welfare check revealed hazardous, unsanitary conditions and the mother tested positive for methamphetamine and THC.
Deprivation proceedings began January 2011; the State sought termination of parental rights in November 2012; trial occurred May 2013.
The juvenile referee found the children deprived, the mother’s illegal drug use and intermittent incarceration caused the removal, and the father had significant untreated mental‑health issues and limited participation in services.
The referee found the children had been in foster care continuously since removal and had spent more than 450 of the prior 660 nights in foster care.
The referee concluded reunification efforts were reasonable, terminated both parents’ rights, and the juvenile court adopted the referee’s findings.
On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed the findings for clear error and affirmed termination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mother/Father)	Held
Standard of review for termination appeals	Juvenile court findings subject to clear‑error review	Mother argued for de novo review (relying on older precedent)	Clear‑error standard applies (post‑rule change); de novo rejected
Sufficiency of evidence for termination under §27‑20‑44(1)(c) (deprivation + remedy/450-of-660 alternative)	Children were deprived and had been in foster care >450 of prior 660 nights; alternatively conditions likely to continue	Parents argued deprivation wasn’t caused by them / not proven at time of hearing / conditions would not continue	Finding of deprivation supported; children had been in foster care >450/660 nights — grounds for termination satisfied
Whether State made reasonable efforts to reunify	State made reasonable, diligent efforts to provide services to both parents	Parents claimed State failed to make reasonable efforts and obstructed access to services	Court’s finding that reasonable efforts were made is supported; parents’ failures to complete tasks (missed appointments, noncooperation) prevented reunification
Applicability of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)	ICWA does not apply because children are not eligible members per tribe’s determination	Mother argued children (and father) eligible for Round Valley enrollment so ICWA should apply	Tribe’s ICWA director and record showed father not enrolled and tribe determined ICWA did not apply; court’s finding upheld

Key Cases Cited

In re M.G., 2010 ND 157, 786 N.W.2d 710 (clarifying burden and clear‑and‑convincing standard in termination)
Interest of A.W., 2012 ND 153, 820 N.W.2d 128 (standards for clear‑error review in termination cases)
Adoption of S.R.F., 2004 ND 150, 683 N.W.2d 913 (N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) change affecting review of juvenile findings)
Interest of D.Q., 2002 ND 188, 653 N.W.2d 713 (older precedent the mother relied on; superseded for review standard)
Interest of A.B., 2009 ND 116, 767 N.W.2d 817 (review and sufficiency of reasonable‑efforts findings)
Interest of E.R., 2004 ND 202, 688 N.W.2d 384 (reasonable‑efforts and parent responsibility to cooperate)
McKechnie v. Berg, 2003 ND 136, 667 N.W.2d 628 (bench‑trial evidence admissibility principles)
Interest of B.B., 2007 ND 115, 735 N.W.2d 855 (presumption trial court considers only competent evidence in bench trials)
Adoption of C.D., 2008 ND 128, 751 N.W.2d 236 (tribal determinations of membership are binding for ICWA)
Spitzer v. Bartelson, 2009 ND 179, 773 N.W.2d 798 (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (U.S. Supreme Court discussion relevant to ICWA and termination contexts)