Specialized Contracting, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
2012 ND 259
| N.D. | 2012Background
- B.N. appeals from juvenile court orders terminating his parental rights to J.N. and J.N.; this Court reverses and remands.
- Juvenile court found the children within the Uniform Juvenile Court Act and that reasonable efforts for reunification were made, and terminated L.P.’s and B.N.’s parental rights.
- No deprivation finding was entered specifically for J.N. and J.N. in the memorandum or findings; the court issued only general, conclusory statements.
- The State proposed deprivation at the time of removal (July 2010) could support termination, but the court did not make a deprivation finding at the termination hearing in August 2012.
- The court did not specify whether termination was based on ongoing deprivation or on 450 nights in foster care, as required by ND Century 27-20-44(1)(c).
- This Court reverses and remands to require explicit deprivation findings and a clear determination of the applicable subsection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a deprivation finding at termination. | State contends deprivation existed from July 2010. | B.N. argues deprivation at removal suffices for termination. | No; deprivation must be found at the time of termination. |
| Did the court make sufficiently specific findings of deprivation and basis for termination. | Findings were adequate under the statute. | Findings were general and conclusory. | Findings were insufficiently specific; remand required. |
| Did the court indicate which subsection of 27-20-44(1)(c) applied (c)(1) vs (c)(2)). | Court relied on the statutory criteria without specifying the subsection. | Not stated in the record. | Court failed to specify the applicable subsection; remand needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vondal, 2011 ND 59 (2011) (need for specific findings under Rule 52(a))
- In re Midgett, 2009 ND 106 (2009) (deprivation findings required for termination)
- In re R.A.S., 2008 ND 185 (2008) (deprivation must be shown at time of termination)
- L.C.V. v. D.E.G., 2005 ND 180 (2005) (clarity of findings necessary for appellate review)
- In re Estate of Wicklund, 2012 ND 29 (2012) (detailed findings required to support termination)
- In re K.B., 2011 ND 152 (2011) (findings of fact must be explicit and reviewable)