Lill v. J.B. (In Re Interest of J.B.)
916 N.W.2d 787
N.D.2018Background
- J.B., a newborn, was removed from parents Ashley J.G. (mother) and N.B. (father) in Aug–Sep 2017; physical custody later placed with father under court order. Social Services petitioned in Oct 2017 to find the child deprived.
- Mother (J.G.) has a history of child neglect/abuse convictions, an involuntary termination of parental rights to two prior children (2016), and a 2017 felony conviction for failing to register as an offender against children; she served a 90-day jail term and was incarcerated at the time of parts of these proceedings.
- Evidence admitted included J.G.’s criminal judgment, Grand Forks findings terminating her rights to prior children, and testimony from Cass and Grand Forks social workers about prior abuse, noncooperation with services, and the mother’s lack of acceptance of responsibility.
- Father (N.B.) has no prior child-protection history, had been caring for J.B., and the guardian ad litem testified he is a capable parent; he acknowledged knowing of mother’s history and intended to continue his relationship with her and co-parent.
- Juvenile court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that J.B. is a deprived child under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(8)(a), transferred legal custody to Cass County Social Services for nine months, and granted physical custody to N.B. conditioned on restrictions regarding J.G.’s residence and participation until approved by Social Services.
- Parents appealed; the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the record shows present lack of proper parental care or control given mother’s history and father’s willingness to continue the relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Parents’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that J.B. is a "deprived child" under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(8)(a) | Social Services: mother’s felony convictions, prior involuntary termination, continued requirement to register, denial of responsibility, history of abuse/noncooperation, and father’s willingness to remain with mother show present lack of proper parental care or control | J.G.: prior history alone is insufficient; removal cannot be based solely on past acts and Social Services must make reasonable efforts; N.B.: no evidence J.B. lacked proper care while with father | Affirmed: Court held clear and convincing evidence supports deprivation finding based on mother’s history, nonacceptance of responsibility, risk to siblings, and father’s intent to continue the relationship with her |
| Whether the court may consider prior proceedings and sibling outcomes in deprivation analysis | Social Services: prior findings and termination involving siblings are relevant and courts may take judicial notice; abuse of one child is probative for siblings’ safety | Parents: reliance on prior cases creates risk of removing a child solely for past acts; must focus on present care of the child | Held: Prior proceedings and sibling-deprivation findings are relevant; courts need not wait for a tragic incident and may consider patterns involving other children |
| Whether removal violated requirement for Social Services to make reasonable efforts to prevent removal or reunify | Social Services: testimony showed services and a treatment plan were being offered; § 27-20-32.2 allowances where prior termination exists | J.G.: argued statute does not allow reduced efforts when prior rights involuntarily terminated; concerned about lack of reunification duty | Held: Record shows Social Services offered services; statutory exceptions do not permit removing the court’s ability to involve Social Services in treatment planning |
| Whether the deprivation finding was impermissible speculation about future harm (per Interest of R.S.) | Social Services: facts here show present incapacity to provide minimum parental care, not mere speculation | Parents: decision rests on possible future harm and on mother’s past — R.S. forbids deprivation based on future possibility when child not presently lacking care | Held: Distinguished R.S.; court concluded evidence showed present risk and incapacity (especially given mother’s convictions and father’s conduct), so finding was not mere speculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of T.T., 681 N.W.2d 779 (N.D. 2004) (standard of review for juvenile court findings)
- Interest of R.S., 787 N.W.2d 277 (N.D. 2010) (deprivation cannot rest on mere possibility of future harm)
- Interest of K.B., 801 N.W.2d 416 (N.D. 2011) (abuse of one child relevant to care of siblings; need not await tragic event)
- Interest of J.R., 643 N.W.2d 699 (N.D. 2002) (definition of "proper parental care" means community’s minimum tolerable standards)
- Interest of J.A.H., 855 N.W.2d 394 (N.D. 2014) (juvenile court custody transfer authority under deprivation findings)