J.E. v. A.P., 889 N.W.2d 863

Child C.D.G.E., born 2010; father J.E. has had primary residential responsibility since 2014.
Mother A.P. is obligated to pay child support and is in arrears, affecting her driver's license eligibility.
J.E. petitioned to terminate A.P.’s parental rights and submitted a signed affidavit in which A.P. consented to termination.
Proceedings were governed by N.D.C.C. § 27-20-45 (termination where no adoption is pending); district court found A.P. did not validly consent and denied the petition as not serving the child’s welfare.
J.E. appealed, arguing the district court erred in failing to find abandonment and in finding no valid consent; the Supreme Court reviewed consent and whether denial abused discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.P. gave valid written consent to termination	J.E.: A.P. signed an affidavit consenting; consent should be valid	A.P.: Consent invalid because she was not advised of right to appointed counsel and misunderstood ongoing support obligation	Court: Consent was valid — affidavit and on-record acknowledgment suffice; A.P. had indicated willingness to continue support
Whether the district court abused discretion by denying termination after a required ground was present	J.E.: Even with consent, denial abused discretion because A.P.’s inconsistent involvement harms child; termination serves child’s welfare	A.P.: Denial was reasonable; petitioner failed to show denying petition would seriously harm child; some motive to avoid support undermines petition	Court: No abuse of discretion — petitioner failed to show denial would seriously affect child’s welfare; denial affirmed

In re J.C., 736 N.W.2d 451 (N.D. 2007) (clear-and-convincing burden for parental-rights termination)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (standard of proof required in termination proceedings)
Adoption of K.S.H., 442 N.W.2d 417 (N.D. 1989) (statute confers discretion to grant or deny termination)
Interest of D.S., 325 N.W.2d 654 (N.D. 1982) (best interest of child as factor in termination decisions)
Interest of D.R., 525 N.W.2d 672 (N.D. 1994) (denial erroneous if it would seriously affect child’s emotional well-being)
In re G.R., 842 N.W.2d 882 (N.D. 2014) (standard for reviewing findings of fact)
In re A.L., 803 N.W.2d 597 (N.D. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for termination decisions)
Anderson v. Baker, 871 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 2015) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Hobus v. Hobus, 540 N.W.2d 158 (N.D. 1995) (parents may not relinquish parental rights to avoid support obligations)