Interest of K.L. and M.S.
, 2008 ND 131,
A juvenile court's decision to terminate parental rights is a question of fact that will not be overturned unless the decision is clearly erroneous.
The State cannot rely on past deprivation alone, but must provide prognostic evidence, Ademonstrating the deprivation will continue.
A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in termination proceedings is recognized, but the necessary evidence of the claim must appear on the face of the record and a case will not be remanded for the purpose of developing a record to support
the claim.
Interest of C.J., S.J., and K.W.
, 2008 ND 81,
A juvenile court judgment terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3).
Interest of B.B.
, 2008 ND 51,
746 N.W.2d 411
A child is deprived if clear and convincing evidence shows the child is without the proper parental care necessary for the child's physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals, and the deprivation is not due primarily to the lack of financial
means of the child's parents or guardians.
Reasonable efforts to preserve and reunite families must be made before the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home, and to make it possible for a child to return safely to
the child's home.
Interest of B.B.
, 2007 ND 115,
735 N.W.2d 855
To satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule, each participant in the creation of the record must be acting in the course of regularly conducted business.
The Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses does not apply to civil proceedings.
A party in a deprivation proceeding in juvenile court is entitled to the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A juvenile court's finding of deprivation will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
Interest of D.D.
, 2006 ND 30,
708 N.W.2d 900
Findings of fact in juvenile proceedings will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
Although incarceration, by itself, does not establish abandonment of a child for purposes of terminating parental rights, a probability of harm to the child may be established by prognostic evidence that a parent's current inability to care for the
child will continue long enough to render improbable the successful assimilation of the child into a family if the parent's rights are not terminated.
Interest of E.S.
, 2006 ND 7,
711 N.W.2d 606
Termination of parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of A.B.
, 2005 ND 216,
707 N.W.2d 75
An order granting leave to intervene in an action is not appealable.
Interest of J.F.
, 2005 ND 194,
709 N.W.2d 21
Orders finding a child to be unruly and deprived are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Pautz v. N.B.
, 2005 ND 4,
694 N.W.2d 22
An order finding a child unruly is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).
Interest of T.T.
, 2004 ND 138,
681 N.W.2d 779
Issues not raised in juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
A deprivation hearing in juvenile court may not be combined with a hearing on divorce-related child custody and visitation issues.
A juvenile court's oral findings may be used to explain the juvenile court's written decision.
Interest of J.P. and D.P.
, 2004 ND 25,
674 N.W.2d 273
Under state law, a juvenile court may terminate parental rights if a child is deprived, the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue, and the child is suffering, or will in the future probably suffer, serious physical, mental,
moral, or emotional harm.
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, a petitioner for termination of parental rights must (1) demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that active efforts were made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the
breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts were unsuccessful, and (2) prove continued custody of a child by a parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child by proof beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Interest of D.Q.
, 2002 ND 188,
653 N.W.2d 713
A district court's review of a judicial referee's findings and recommendations under Administrative Rule 13, section 11(b), when it is a review of the record, is governed by N.D.R.Civ.P. 53, and the district court is obliged to accept the referee's
findings unless they are clearly erroneous.
Interest of R.K.
, 2002 ND 111,
646 N.W.2d 699
The definition of a deprived child is broad enough to include a child whose parent, while never having had the opportunity to care for the child, is shown to be presently incapable of providing parental care for the child.
In making a custody disposition under the Uniform Juvenile Court Act, the court has considerable latitude but must rule consistent with the purpose of the Act to provide for the care of the child in a family environment whenever possible, separating
the child from a parent only when necessary for the child's welfare or in the interest of public safety.
Interest of J.R. and L.R.
, 2002 ND 78,
643 N.W.2d 699
A child is deprived if clear and convincing evidence shows the child is without the proper parental care necessary for the child's physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals, and the deprivation is not due primarily to the lack of financial
means of the child's parents or guardians.
Interest of M.C.H.
, 2001 ND 205,
637 N.W.2d 678
Juveniles between the ages of seven and fourteen have no common law right to a presumption of incapacity to commit a crime, because the criminal capacity of children between the ages of seven and fourteen has been declared by statute.
Interest of A.B.
, 2001 ND 111,
627 N.W.2d 776
If juvenile delinquency proceedings are begun in a court other than in the county of the child's residence, that court must transfer the proceedings for disposition to the juvenile court of the county of the child's residence, if the child has been
adjudicated delinquent and other proceedings involving the child are pending in that court.
Interest of C.H.
, 2001 ND 37,
622 N.W.2d 720
The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over proceedings concerning unruly children. The custodian has the right to determine the nature of the care, placement, and treatment of the child, except for any limits the court may impose.
The underlying obligation of the juvenile court under the Uniform Juvenile Court Act is to protect the welfare of the children.
Interest of R.K.E.
, 1999 ND 106,
594 N.W.2d 702
An order committing a delinquent or unruly child to the division of juvenile services may be extended for an additional two-year period upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the extension is necessary for the treatment or
rehabilitation of the child.
Interest of A.J.K.
, 1998 ND App 3,
582 N.W.2d 13
A juvenile court petition resulting in a temporary shelter order
should be dismissed or withdrawn and the record expunged when the
child has been returned to the custody of the parent and has
turned 18.
Interest of R.D.B.
, 1998 ND 15,
575 N.W.2d 420
When a child and his parents knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily waive their right to counsel in the juvenile court
proceedings, the juvenile court need not appoint counsel.
Permanent impairment of vision constitutes "serious bodily
injury" under the aggravated assault statute, N.D.C.C.
12.1-17-02.
A person who engages in mutual combat is not justified in using
force and may not claim self-defense.
Rainesalo v. P.A.
, 1997 ND 146,
566 N.W.2d 422
Sufficient evidence existed to find juvenile committed conspiracy
to commit reckless endangerment and reckless endangerment.
Interest of J.C.S.
, 1997 ND 126,
565 N.W.2d 759
Sufficient evidence existed to find juvenile committed conspiracy
to commit unlawful entry into or concealment within a motor
vehicle.
Interest of A. E.
, 1997 ND 9,
559 N.W.2d 215
Under N.D.C.C. 27-20-34(1)(c)(4)(b), the court must find there
are reasonable grounds to believe that the juvenile is not
amenable to treatment or rehabilitation as a juvenile in order to
transfer a juvenile to district court for prosecution.
Generally, the State bears the burden of persuasion that the
juvenile is not amenable to treatment; however, N.D.C.C.
27-20-34(2) shifts the burden of persuasion to the child to show
there are reasonable grounds to believe the child is amenable to
treatment.
Interest of J.K.M.
,
557 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1996)
Affirming juvenile court's order refusing to transfer
child from juvenile court to district court
under N.D.C.C. 27-20-34(1)(b)(4). In medical
testimony presented and child's response to
treatment, the State did not prove reasonable grounds
to believe child is not amenable to treatment.
Interest of A.V.
,
554 N.W.2d 461 (N.D. 1996)
In a child deprivation proceeding, the petitioner must
prove that a child's injury was caused either directly by, or
through the actions of, a parent or parental substitute.
Interest of F.N.D.
,
554 N.W.2d 456 (N.D. 1996)
The juvenile court did not err in prohibiting a woman
and her four-year-old daughter from having contact with the
mother of the woman's ex-boyfriend, where the ex-boyfriend had
been charged with sexually abusing the child and the
ex-boyfriend's mother had been the child's day care provider.
Interest of K.G.
,
551 N.W.2d 554 (N.D. 1996)
The juvenile court did not err when it applied the child
support guidelines to determine a parent's financial ability
to pay support for her child in foster care under Section
27-20-49, N.D.C.C.
Interest of J.A.G.
,
552 N.W.2d 317 (N.D. 1996)
The juvenile court did not err in finding reasonable grounds
to believe the juvenile committed a delinquent act of
conspiracy to commit armed robbery and was not amenable to
treatment or rehabilitation as a juvenile through available
programs.
Interest of C.R.M.
,
552 N.W.2d 324 (N.D. 1996)
The juvenile court did not err in ruling that the rules of
evidence were inapplicable to a juvenile
transfer proceeding, or in allowing a detective, who was
cross-examined, to present hearsay
testimony based upon information acquired in the course of his
investigation.
The juvenile court did not err in finding probable cause to
believe the juvenile assisted in committing an attempted
robbery resulting in a person's death.
Interest of E.J.H. and T.S.H.
,
546 N.W.2d 361 (N.D. 1996)
Eastburn v. B.E.
,
545 N.W.2d 767 (N.D. 1996)
Interest of C.M.
,
532 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1995)
Interest of T.S.
,
519 N.W.2d 301 (N.D. 1994)
Odegard v. T.M.
,
512 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 1994)
Interest of C.L.L.
,
507 N.W.2d 900 (N.D. 1993)
Interest of K.S.
,
500 N.W.2d 603 (N.D. 1993)
Interest of B.S.
,
496 N.W.2d 31 (N.D. 1993)
Anderson v. J. D.
,
494 N.W.2d 160 (N.D. 1992)
Interest of M.D.N.
,
493 N.W.2d 680 (N.D. 1992)
Interest of A.M.A, T.N.A., N.D.A.
,
439 N.W.2d 535 (N.D. 1989)
Interest of J.D.Z.
,
431 N.W.2d 272 (N.D. 1988)
J.S.S. v. P.M.Z.
,
429 N.W.2d 425 (N.D. 1988)
Interest of K.Q.
,
423 N.W.2d 803 (N.D. 1988)
Interest of K.R.A.G.
,
420 N.W.2d 325 (N.D. 1988)
Interest of C.S., J.S. and A.S.
,
417 N.W.2d 846 (N.D. 1988)
Interest of R.M.B.
,
402 N.W.2d 912 (N.D. 1987)
Interest of J.K.H.
,
392 N.W.2d 406 (N.D. 1986)
Interest of A.S.
,
388 N.W.2d 853 (N.D. 1986)
Interest of C.M.E.
,
385 N.W.2d 102 (N.D. 1986)
Interest of A.G.
,
383 N.W.2d 53 (N.D. 1986)
Interest of C.S.
,
382 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1986)
Interest of J.K.S.
,
321 N.W.2d 491 (N.D. 1982)
Eagan v. D.M.G.
,
317 N.W.2d 115 (N.D. 1982)
Eagan v. D.M.G.
,
311 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1982)
J.L.R. v. R.L.G.
,
311 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1981)
Interest of M.S.
,
310 N.W.2d 719 (N.D. 1981)
Interest of R.R.
,
305 N.W.2d 38 (N.D. 1981)
Interest of S.J.
,
304 N.W.2d 685 (N.D. 1981)
Interest of K.P.
,
302 N.W.2d 779 (N.D. 1981)
Interest of P.W.N.
,
301 N.W.2d 636 (N.D. 1981)
Interest of A.D.L.
,
301 N.W.2d 380 (N.D. 1981)
Interest of B.L.
,
301 N.W.2d 387 (N.D. 1981)
Interest of K. G.
,
295 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 1980)
Interest of S.W.
,
290 N.W.2d 675 (N.D. 1980)
Interest of E.B.
,
287 N.W.2d 462 (N.D. 1980)
Interest of M. D. J.
,
285 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1979)
Interest of F.H.
,
283 N.W.2d 202 (N.D. 1979)
Interest of N.N.
,
278 N.W.2d 150 (N.D. 1979)
Interest of L.R.S.
,
271 N.W.2d 562 (N.D. 1978)
Interest of T.M.M.
,
267 N.W.2d 807 (N.D. 1978)
Interest of D.S.
,
263 N.W.2d 114 (N.D. 1978)
Zander v. S.J.K.
,
256 N.W.2d 713 (N.D. 1977)
Interest of M. L., E. L., and G. L., Children
,
239 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1976)
Interest of G.H.
,
218 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 1974)
Matter of R.Y., Jr.
,
189 N.W.2d 644 (N.D. 1971)