Matter of C.D.G.E., 2017 ND 13

Child C.D.G.E., born 2010; father J.E. has had primary residential responsibility since 2014.
Mother A.P. owed child support arrearages and was prevented from obtaining a driver’s license.
J.E. petitioned to terminate A.P.’s parental rights and submitted A.P.’s written affidavit consenting to termination.
District court considered the case under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-45 (termination where no adoption is pending) and denied the petition, finding A.P. had not validly consented and concluding termination would not serve the child’s welfare.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed (1) whether A.P. validly consented and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying termination despite consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (J.E.)	Defendant's Argument (A.P.)	Held
Was there valid written consent to terminate parental rights?	A.P. signed and acknowledged a written affidavit consenting to termination.	Consent was invalid because she was not shown to have been advised she could obtain counsel if indigent and might not have agreed if she knew termination wouldn’t eliminate support obligations.	The Court held A.P. validly consented; district court’s contrary finding was clearly erroneous.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying the termination petition despite consent?	Denial was erroneous because A.P. had been inconsistently involved and termination would promote the child’s welfare.	Denial was proper: petitioner failed to show how denying termination would seriously harm the child; mother’s motives included avoiding support payments.	The Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion; denial affirmed.

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (constitutional standard for proof in parental termination cases)
In re J.C., 736 N.W.2d 451 (N.D. 2007) (clear and convincing evidence requirement)
Adoption of K.S.H., 442 N.W.2d 417 (N.D. 1989) (statutory "may" confers discretion to terminate)
Interest of D.S., 325 N.W.2d 654 (N.D. 1982) (best interest of the child as a consideration)
Interest of D.R., 525 N.W.2d 672 (N.D. 1994) (denial erroneous if it would seriously affect children’s emotional well-being)
In re G.R., 842 N.W.2d 882 (N.D. 2014) (standard for clear-error review)
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 cannot voluntarily terminate rights to avoid support obligations)