State v. Sommer
2011 ND 151
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Four children: K.B. (born 2007), W.M. (born 2008), J.M. (special-needs twins), and P.M. (born 2010) were removed to foster care after W.M. sustained head injuries deemed non-accidental; W.M. injuries led to deprivation finding in 2009 and removal to CPS custody.
- Cass County Social Services petitioned to terminate parental rights; N.M. and M.M. consented to termination for the twins, with trial extending to K.B. and P.M.
- A juvenile court referee terminated parental rights after trial; findings included deprivation, likelihood of continued deprivation, and potential for serious harm to children.
- Evidence included expert testimony that W.M.’s injuries were non-accidental (shaken baby syndrome), and that parents were unable to provide safe, stable care for all children.
- The court held all four children are deprived and terminated parental rights; trial court’s findings were adopted and affirmed on review.
- Special-needs status and the home environment were considered in assessing deprivation and prognosis; evidence tied to W.M.’s injuries supported deprivation for K.B. and P.M.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.B. and P.M. are deprived children | K.B. and P.M. not deprived | Deprivation supported by overall home environment | Yes, deprived; rights terminated |
| Sufficiency of W.M. injury evidence | Injury not proven non-accidental by clear evidence | Medical testimony supports non-accidental trauma | Evidence supports non-accidental injury; probative to deprivation |
| Role of parental deficits in deprivation finding | Deficits to K.B. and P.M. not proven | Parental deficits proven via therapy, cooperation limits | Prognostic evidence supports continuing deprivation |
| Effect of special-needs status on deprivation analysis | Special needs should shield parents from deprivation findings | Special needs contextualizes care but does not negate deprivation | Special needs considered but deprivation sustained for K.B. and P.M. |
| Impact of relinquishment of W.M. and J.M. on analysis | Relinquishment abates impact on current determinations | Cannot selectively limit evidence across siblings | Abatement not control; deprivation found for all four children |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of A.M., 1999 ND 195, 601 N.W.2d 253 (ND 1999) (protects welfare; termination preventive as well as remedial)
- Interest of K.S., 2002 ND 164, 652 N.W.2d 341 (ND 2002) (due process/notice; prior orders; test not sole basis for deprivation)
- Interest of L.F., 1998 ND 129, 580 N.W.2d 573 (ND 1998) (prognostic evidence required; background may be considered)
- Interest of J.A.L., 432 N.W.2d 876 (ND 1988) (prognostic evidence may rely on professionals’ opinions)
- Interest of T.J.O., 462 N.W.2d 633 (ND 1990) (prognostic evidence; ability to care for child in future must be unlikely)