Adoption of S.R.F.

20030364

In the Matter of the Adoption
of S.R.F., a minor child

R. F. and D.F., Petitioners and Appellees
v.
C.A.M., natural mother, Respondent and Appellant
--------
S.D.S., natural father, and
Julie Hoffman, Administrator
of the Adoption Services
Division of the North Dakota
Department of Human Services, Respondents

Appeal from:

District Court, Southwest Judicial District, Stark County
Judge Allan L. Schmalenberger

Nature of Action:

Adoption

Counsel:

Appellant:		Keogh Law Office
Appellee:		Ramsey Law Office, P.L.L.C.

Term:

06/2004 Argument: 06/23/2004

ND cite:

2004 ND 150

NW cite:

683 N.W.2d 913

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues:

Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether Finding of Fact 15 is supported by the evidence.
2. Whether Finding of Fact 31 is supported by the evidence.
3. Whether the court erred in Conclusion of Law 3 that Carol's consent to the adoption was not required under 14-15-06(1)(b), NDCC, or 14-15-06 (1)(j), and whether thatConclusion of Law was supported by the Findings.
4. Whether the court erred in Conclusion of Law 5 that pursuant to 14-15-19 (3) (a) Carol abandoned the child, ad whether that Conclusion of Law was supported bythe Findings.
5. Whether the court erred in it's Conclusion of Law 6 pursuant to 14-15-19 (3) (b), NDCC, and whether such Conclusion of Law is supported by the Findings.
6. Whether the court erred in it's Conclusion of Law 7 that it was in the best interests of the child that Carol's parental rights be terminated.
7. Whether the court erred in it's Conclusion of Law 8 that the adoption of the child by Jack and Lynn was in his best interests.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the consent of the child's natural mother to the adoption was not required?
II. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the natural mother had abandoned the child?
III. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the child was a deprived child and that the deprivation of the child was likely to continue and as result the child probably will suffer serious harm?
IV. Whether the trial court erred in terminating the parental rights of the child's natural mother?
V. Whether the trial court's decision to grant the adoption was clearly erroneous?

Add Docket 20030364 RSS

Docket entries:

1		12/17/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/16/2003
2		12/17/2003 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 12/16/2003
3		12/17/2003 (THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL CASE)
4		01/16/2004 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 02/04/2004
5		02/04/2004 TRANSCRIPT DATED August 14-15, 2003
6		02/05/2004 DISK - TRA (e-filed)
7		02/09/2004 RECORD ON APPEAL
8		03/09/2004 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
9		03/09/2004 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 03/31/2004
10		03/25/2004 APPELLANT BRIEF
11		03/25/2004 APPELLANT APPENDIX
12		04/01/2004 New cover page ATB/ATA, table of contents and page 18
13		04/02/2004 DISK - atb
14		04/22/2004 APPELLEE BRIEF
15		04/22/2004 APPELLEE APPENDIX
16		04/23/2004 DISK - aeb
17		06/23/2004 APPEARANCES: Robert A. Keogh and Gary D. Ramsey
18		06/22/2004 ARGUED: Keogh; Ramsey (Vol. Z; Page 8)
19		06/22/2004 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
20		07/22/2004 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
21		07/22/2004 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
22		07/26/2004 Judgment Mailed to Parties
23		08/17/2004 MANDATE
24		08/23/2004 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
25		05/20/2011 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 06/15/2018