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  1:30pm
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 Add Docket 20030364 RSS

Docket entries:
112/17/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/16/2003
212/17/2003 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 12/16/2003
312/17/2003 (THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL CASE)
401/16/2004 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 02/04/2004
502/04/2004 TRANSCRIPT DATED August 14-15, 2003
602/05/2004 DISK - TRA (e-filed)
702/09/2004 RECORD ON APPEAL
803/09/2004 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
903/09/2004 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 03/31/2004
1003/25/2004 APPELLANT BRIEF
1103/25/2004 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1204/01/2004 New cover page ATB/ATA, table of contents and page 18
1304/02/2004 DISK - atb
1404/22/2004 APPELLEE BRIEF
1504/22/2004 APPELLEE APPENDIX
1604/23/2004 DISK - aeb
1706/23/2004 APPEARANCES: Robert A. Keogh and Gary D. Ramsey
1806/22/2004 ARGUED: Keogh; Ramsey (Vol. Z; Page 8)
1906/22/2004 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2007/22/2004 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2107/22/2004 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
2207/26/2004 Judgment Mailed to Parties
2308/17/2004 MANDATE
2408/23/2004 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
2505/20/2011 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/31/2014