Matter of S.E.
2012 ND 168
| N.D. | 2012Background
- S.E. (born 2009) was placed with her grandmother S.R. and her husband J.R. in 2010; parental rights terminated in 2011; custody transferred to the Department with a goal of adoption.
- Two potential adoptive families, including J.R./S.R. and S.L./spouse, expressed interest; the Department contracted for adoption investigations, not in record.
- J.R. and S.R. petitioned to adopt on Nov 29, 2011, naming Cass County as guardian; Department served and objected, asserting correct guardian was the Department and consent was required.
- Trial court (Jan 2012) dismissed for lack of proper Department consent and standing; later, Department argued consent withheld reasonably; reconsideration occurred.
- On appeal, J.R. and S.R. argued a §14-15-11 hearing was required to assess reasonableness of Department’s consent denial; issue controversially remained.
- Court held the petition should not have been dismissed and remanded to hold a hearing under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-11.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Department consent required and properly sought? | Department consent required; Cass County naming was insufficient, but consent could be cured. | Cass County designation was proper; Department consent not properly necessary or sought. | Consent required; misnaming not fatal; hearing needed |
| Was the dismissal proper without a §14-15-11 hearing on consent? | A hearing under §14-15-11 should determine reasonableness of consent denial and best interests. | Dismissal proper given lack of proper consent and standing. | Erred to dismiss; remand for §14-15-11 hearing |
| Is the appeal moot due to S.E.’s adoption during the pendency? | Mootness should not bar review; issues involve public interest and repetition. | Adoption rendered issues moot; relief unavailable. | Appeal not moot; jurisdiction and relief possible; remand appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashley Educ. Ass’n v. Ashley Pub. Sch. Dist., No. 9, 556 N.W.2d 666 (N.D. 1996) (appeal may not be moot if public interest or repetition)
- Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2011 ND 7 (N.D. 2011) (jurisdiction and appellate timing; appeals attachment)
- In re Adoption of L.D.S., 155 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2006) (trial court lacks authority to modify while appeal pending)
- Mack-Manley v. Manley, 138 P.3d 525 (Nev. 2006) (district court cannot rule on post-judgment matters while appeal is pending)
- J.S.S. v. P.M.Z., 429 N.W.2d 425 (N.D. 1988) (jurisdictional considerations with appeals)
- State ex rel. Heitkamp v. Family Life Servs., Inc., 616 N.W.2d 826 (N.D. 2000) (appellate jurisdiction and timing principles)