Interest of T.R.C., 2014 ND 172

T.R.C., born 2011, was taken into custody Nov. 13, 2012; mother abandoned the child and father (S.W.S.) was identified a month later.
Reunification plans were developed for both parents; child adjudicated deprived Dec. 28, 2012 and placed in county custody with out-of-home placement authorized.
State petitioned to terminate parental rights of both parents on Oct. 23, 2013; mother sought voluntary termination at initial hearing.
Termination hearing occurred Apr. 28, 2014; testimony addressed father’s home conditions, employment, and chemical dependency treatment status.
Juvenile court found the child deprived, deprivation likely to continue, returning the child would be contrary to welfare, reasonable efforts were made, and termination was in the child’s best interests; terminated father’s rights.
Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the juvenile court’s factual findings were overly conclusory and did not adequately explain the basis for terminating the father’s rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deprivation is likely to continue such that termination is warranted	State: deprivation likely to continue; father hasn’t remedied causes	Father: State failed to prove likelihood of continued deprivation by clear and convincing evidence	Court: Findings insufficiently specific to support conclusion deprivation likely to continue; remand required
Whether returning child would probably cause serious harm absent termination	State: evidence shows risk of serious physical/mental/moral/emotional harm	Father: disputed facts and evidence create uncertainty about probable harm	Court: Trial court did not make specific findings tying facts to statutory harm standard; cannot review decision
Whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal and effect reunification	State: reasonable efforts were made and documented	Father: challenges adequacy of efforts (argues insufficient)	Court: Court concluded reasonable efforts were found but did not explain factual basis sufficiently; remand for more detailed findings
Whether procedural requirement of Rule 52(a) was satisfied by juvenile court findings	State: incorporated affidavits and general findings suffice	Father: findings are conclusory and fail to permit appellate review	Held: Court agreed with father — findings were general/conclusory, violating Rule 52(a); reversed and remanded for specific findings

In re R.L.-P., 842 N.W.2d 889 (N.D. 2014) (standard of review and burden of proof in termination proceedings)
In re J.N., 825 N.W.2d 868 (N.D. 2012) (trial courts must make specific findings to permit appellate review)
Niska v. Falconer, 824 N.W.2d 778 (N.D. 2012) (findings should aid appellate court and clarify factual determinations)
State v. Gress, 803 N.W.2d 607 (N.D. 2011) (appellate review requires explanation of trial court’s application of law to facts)