J.R. v. Executive Director
820 N.W.2d 389
| N.D. | 2012Background
- J.R. and S.R. petitioned to adopt S.E. (born 2009); S.E. placed with them after parental rights termination and custody in the Department with an adoption goal.
- The petition mistakenly named Cass County as guardian; the Department was properly served and opposed the petition.
- The Department argued lack of proper consent, improper naming, and lack of standing, or unreasonably withheld consent.
- The trial court dismissed the petition, holding jurisdiction and standing but requiring proper Department consent or a showing of unreasonableness.
- After reconsideration evidence suggested the Department declined to consent; the appeal followed, addressing whether a hearing under 14-15-11 was required.
- The court held the appeal was not moot and remanded to hold a hearing under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-11.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of the appeal | J.R. and S.R. argue not moot despite adoption. | Department contends adoption mooted the appeal. | Not moot; remand for hearing on merits. |
| Requirement of a hearing under 14-15-11 | Trial court should hold hearing on Department’s consent reasonableness. | Consent issue resolved by Department’s objection. | Trial court erred by not holding a hearing. |
| Proper party consent and naming in petition | Substantial compliance; Department consent effectively requested. | Incorrect naming of Cass County invalidates consent process. | Proceeding waived form over substance; hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashley Educ. Ass’n v. Ashley Pub. Sch. Dist., No. 9, 556 N.W.2d 666 (N.D.1996) (appeal not moot when important to public interests; mootness doctrine explained)
- In re Adoption of L.D.S., 155 P.3d 1 (Okla.2006) (trial court lack of jurisdiction when appeal pending)
- Mack-Manley v. Manley, 138 P.3d 525 (Nev.2006) (post-judgment custody issues cannot be altered while appeal pending)
- J.S.S. v. P.M.Z., 429 N.W.2d 425 (N.D.1988) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on matters affecting appeal scope)
- Harwood v. Harwood, 283 N.W.2d 144 (N.D.1979) (general authority on jurisdiction and appeal timing)
- Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2011 ND 7, 793 N.W.2d 371 (N.D.2011) (jurisdictional issues upon filing of notice of appeal)
- State ex rel. Heitkamp v. Family Life Servs., Inc., 2000 ND 166, 616 N.W.2d 826 (N.D.2000) (trial court’s authority during appeal)