2016 ND 67
N.D.2016Background
- Child born in 2011; mother (K.B.C.) later married step‑father (B.J.C.) in Dec. 2014. Father is D.V.T.; paternity not judicially adjudicated but parties agree he is biological father.
- Mother and step‑father petitioned (Jan. 23, 2015) to terminate D.V.T.’s parental rights and permit step‑father adoption, alleging father had not communicated with or supported the child for over one year.
- Hearing held Dec. 7, 2015; father appeared, testified, and opposed the petition. District court orally found abandonment and granted adoption; final decree entered Dec. 8, 2015.
- Key factual findings: father saw the child only twice in ~4 years, made sporadic phone calls (≈10 calls in the prior year), sent occasional gifts but no financial support, lives in Colorado and declined to visit in North Dakota.
- Mother may have inhibited some contact, but court found father did not take sufficient affirmative steps to maintain relationship or provide support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father’s consent to adoption was required / whether he abandoned the child | Father abandoned the child by failing to communicate or provide support for years; consent not required under N.D.C.C. §14‑15‑06(1) | Father attempted frequent contact, was obstructed by mother, intended to parent and did not intend to abandon | Court held father abandoned the child; consent not required and termination appropriate |
| Whether father had legal obligation to support absent adjudicated paternity | Petitioners: biological father has duty to support; lack of court order does not absolve support obligation | Father: as an alleged (non‑adjudicated) father he lacked legal obligation to support under §14‑15‑06(1)(b)(2) | Court held biological father had duty to support despite no adjudication; father had standing to object |
| Whether court’s written finding that no person appeared claiming to be natural father was erroneous | Petitioners’ proposed order stated no one appeared | Father appeared and objected; written finding contradicted record | Court found written finding was erroneous but harmless; modified decree to reflect father’s appearance |
| Whether district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | Petitioners: evidence (limited contact, no support) supports findings by clear and convincing evidence | Father: interference by mother and attempts to contact show no intent to abandon | Court concluded evidence supports findings and decision was not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.R.F., 683 N.W.2d 913 (N.D. 2004) (standard for review of adoption findings and abandonment analysis)
- In re Adoption of I.R.R., 839 N.W.2d 846 (N.D. 2013) (factors for abandonment; parental duties and inference of intent from conduct)
- In re Adoption of H.R.W., 689 N.W.2d 403 (N.D. 2004) (parental obligations relevant to abandonment)
- S.H.B. v. T.A.H., 786 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 2010) (intent to abandon may be inferred from conduct)
- In re Adoption of H.G.C., 761 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 2009) (custodial parent’s interference considered but noncustodial parent must continue efforts)
- In re Adoption of A.M.B., 514 N.W.2d 670 (N.D. 1994) (absence of adjudicated paternity does not absolve support obligation; failure to support relevant to abandonment)
- McDowell v. McDowell, 670 N.W.2d 876 (N.D. 2003) (parental duty to support children)