State v. J.N., 825 N.W.2d 868

B.N. (father) and L.P. (mother) are parents of J.N. and J.N.; they were not married and lived in Georgia before splitting up, with L.P. and the children later moving to North Dakota.
L.P. had substance abuse and housing/employment issues, leading Barnes County Social Services to remove the children in July 2010 and place them in foster care.
Efforts were made to reunite the children with L.P.; by July 2011 it appeared reunification might occur, but by December 2011 the State petitioned to terminate L.P.’s and B.N.’s parental rights.
After the petition, B.N. moved to North Dakota, began visiting the children, and underwent psychological and substance-abuse evaluations.
An August 2012 evidentiary hearing resulted in the juvenile court finding the children within the Juvenile Court Act and ordering termination of L.P.’s and B.N.’s parental rights, but the court issued no deprivation findings specific to the children at the time of the termination hearing.
The court’s memorandum and findings contained only general, conclusory statements rather than specific deprivation findings and did not clarify which statutory basis (subsection) supported termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a deprivation finding was required at the termination hearing	B.N. argues deprivation must be found at the time of termination.	State contends deprivation was established, potentially by earlier findings.	Yes; deprivation must be proven at the time of termination.
Whether the court’s findings were sufficiently specific	Findings were conclusory and failed to explain deprivation or basis for termination.	The court found termination under the act generally.	No; findings were insufficiently specific to enable review.
Whether the court failed to specify the applicable subsection under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(l)(c)	The court did not say whether deprivation or 450-night criterion supported termination.	The court cited that the criteria were met under the statute.	No; the court must specify which subsection it relied upon.
Remand remedy for proper findings and decision	The orders should be reversed and the matter remanded for proper deprivation findings and justification.	Remand is unnecessary if adequate findings could be supplied on remand.	Remand is required for sufficient findings and to redetermine termination decision.

In re Vondal, 2011 ND 59 (ND 2011) (specificity required in findings under Rule 52(a))
Rothberg v. Rothberg, 2006 ND 65 (ND 2006) (findings must support evaluation of burden of proof)
In re Midgett, 2009 ND 106 (ND 2009) (deprivation findings prerequisite to termination)
In re R.A.S., 2008 ND 185 (ND 2008) (preserves requirement of deprivation finding at termination)
L.C.V. v. D.E.G., 2005 ND 180 (ND 2005) (adequate factual findings necessary for review)
In re B.M., 835 N.W.2d 321 (ND 1983) (deprivation condition may change over time; timeliness of deprivation evidence)
In re R.H., 262 N.W.2d 719 (ND 1978) (original deprivation finding not res judicata for later termination)
In re Wicklund, 2012 ND 29 (ND 2012) (necessity of findings and conclusions to review)
In re K.B., 2011 ND 152 (ND 2011) (review standards for findings on the record)
In re Adoption of S.M.G., 2010 ND 173 (ND 2010) (review of termination decisions with adequate reasoning required)
Ebach v. Ebach, 2008 ND 187 (ND 2008) (clarity of trial court’s reasoning on findings)