ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice.
In this ease, G.N., the father of N.N., a girl 17 years of age as of October 18, 1978, hereafter referred to as Naomi, a pseudonym, appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court for the County of Burleigh dated September 13, 1978, which, among other things, determined that Naomi is a deprived child and temporarily placed her in the custody of the Burleigh County Social Services for a period of not to exceed six months. We affirm.
The appeal was heard in our court on March 6, 1979, only a few days prior to the termination of the six-month-period. We were informed at oral argument that the Burleigh County Social Services Board had placed Naomi in the home of her mother, R.N., sometime prior to the date of oral argument, but that the Board still retained official custody. Obviously, then, as the judgment1 limited the custody of Naomi in the Board for a period not to exceed six months, that custody, unless it has been continued by a subsequent order and judgment, is terminated. As the judgment, however, determined that Naomi is a deprived child, a determination which casts a reflection on the parents, it is essential that we consider the father’s contentions on this appeal.
We note that paragraph 11. of the judgment requires that the Burleigh County Social Services Board file a report with the court prior to the expiration of the order. [152]*152We assume that this has been done and if not we trust that it will be done soon.
This is a difficult case, made even more difficult because Mr. N. prepared his brief and argued his appeal in our court without the advice or representation of counsel. This has precipitated the filing of two motions by counsel on behalf of Naomi, one asking us to dismiss the appeal on issues now moot, and the other asking us to dismiss the appeal for the reason that Mr. N.’s brief does not conform to Rule 28(a), N.D.R. App.P.2 Both motions are denied.
We have examined Mr. N.’s brief in light of Rule 28(a) and agree that it does not technically comply therewith, but we do not believe the ends of justice would be furthered if we were to dismiss the appeal in this instance under the present circumstances. Incidentally, Mr. N. was represented by competent and experienced counsel at the juvenile court level, and it was apparently because his counsel believed there was no basis for an appeal that the juvenile court declined to appoint counsel for Mr. N. at county expense to take this appeal.
Unfortunately, we are not aided significantly by the initial briefs of counsel for either Naomi or the petitioner, as they too have failed to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure, particularly Rule 28(b).3
The brief of counsel for Naomi is especially illustrative of this failure to comply with our Rules.4 We shall hereafter encourage our clerk of court to reject briefs filed by counsel admitted to practice law before our court that so obviosly fail to comply with our rules.
In a proceeding to determine whether or not a child is a deprived child, which could ultimately result in termination of parental rights, where we must, on appeal, try the case de novo5 and are unable to apply Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., compliance with Rule 28(e), N.D.R.App.P., is especially important.6
[153]*153At our request made at the close of the oral arguments, in light of the paucity of material in the briefs, counsel for the petitioner filed a supplemental brief asserting “G]ust because the Supreme Court is hearing this matter based upon a limited ‘de novo’ proceeding, does not automatically shift the burden of sustaining one’s position from the appellant to the appellee.”
In support of this position, counsel quotes from Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Cusick, 369 Mich. 269, 284, 120 N.W.2d 1, 8 (1963):
“The following record of reasons for remand is entered upon our scroll. It is based squarely on that fundamental tenet of equity; that a hearing of de novo means exactly what the dictionary says, a hearing afresh, and that if, upon exercise of that ‘independent’ judgment which in equity cases is due from us, it appears that the appellant burden-bearer has not sustained his burden, either affirmance or remand — for more proof — should be ordered.”
It should be noted that Cusick did not involve an issue of deprivation and custody, but involved an issue over a life insurance policy.
In Cusick the plaintiff had accused a deceased person of fraud. Notwithstanding that the court said that the corporation failed to sustain that burden below and failed to sustain it in the supreme court, the Supreme Court of Michigan remanded the case for the taking of further testimony.
In this case we see no need for a remand for the taking of further testimony, but we do see a need for stressing that in deprivation cases the burden of disproving the presumption that a parent is fit and suitable rests upon the person challenging it. In the Interest of M.C.C., Foster v. B.J.C., 277 N.W.2d 281 (N.D.1979); In re J.V., 185 N.W.2d 487, 492 (N.D.1971).
We have reviewed the entire record, particularly in light of the references to the pages and lines of the transcript which we elicited from counsel for Naomi in oral argument, and conclude that the evidence as contained in the entire transcript bears out the findings of the juvenile court.
Our statute defines a deprived child as one who “[i]s without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals, and the deprivation is not due primarily to the lack of financial means of his parents, guardian, or other custodian” (§ 27-20-02(5)(a), N.D.C.C.). As the statute indicates, deprivation may involve emotional as well as physical health. In this case, as indicated by the juvenile court’s findings7 and as sustained by the [154]*154transcript, although both are involved, emotional health is that which is most affected at this time.
Without attempting to detail the facts as they are borne out by the transcript, we conclude that the child is a deprived child.
Our analysis of Mr. N.’s brief and his argument in our court is that as he has never personally physically abused his daughter, the judgment is in error. As this case is permeated with emotional issues and instability in the home arising therefrom, his argument relative to physical abuse is irrelevant.
We have held that where one parent could not prevent another parent in the home from causing a child to be deprived, the child was deprived and termination of both parent’s rights were justified, notwithstanding that one parent’s conduct was active and the other parent’s conduct was passive. In the Interest of K.P., McGurren v. E.D. (& R.D.), 267 N.W.2d 1, 5 (N.D.1978). See also In re J.Z.,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice.
In this ease, G.N., the father of N.N., a girl 17 years of age as of October 18, 1978, hereafter referred to as Naomi, a pseudonym, appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court for the County of Burleigh dated September 13, 1978, which, among other things, determined that Naomi is a deprived child and temporarily placed her in the custody of the Burleigh County Social Services for a period of not to exceed six months. We affirm.
The appeal was heard in our court on March 6, 1979, only a few days prior to the termination of the six-month-period. We were informed at oral argument that the Burleigh County Social Services Board had placed Naomi in the home of her mother, R.N., sometime prior to the date of oral argument, but that the Board still retained official custody. Obviously, then, as the judgment1 limited the custody of Naomi in the Board for a period not to exceed six months, that custody, unless it has been continued by a subsequent order and judgment, is terminated. As the judgment, however, determined that Naomi is a deprived child, a determination which casts a reflection on the parents, it is essential that we consider the father’s contentions on this appeal.
We note that paragraph 11. of the judgment requires that the Burleigh County Social Services Board file a report with the court prior to the expiration of the order. [152]*152We assume that this has been done and if not we trust that it will be done soon.
This is a difficult case, made even more difficult because Mr. N. prepared his brief and argued his appeal in our court without the advice or representation of counsel. This has precipitated the filing of two motions by counsel on behalf of Naomi, one asking us to dismiss the appeal on issues now moot, and the other asking us to dismiss the appeal for the reason that Mr. N.’s brief does not conform to Rule 28(a), N.D.R. App.P.2 Both motions are denied.
We have examined Mr. N.’s brief in light of Rule 28(a) and agree that it does not technically comply therewith, but we do not believe the ends of justice would be furthered if we were to dismiss the appeal in this instance under the present circumstances. Incidentally, Mr. N. was represented by competent and experienced counsel at the juvenile court level, and it was apparently because his counsel believed there was no basis for an appeal that the juvenile court declined to appoint counsel for Mr. N. at county expense to take this appeal.
Unfortunately, we are not aided significantly by the initial briefs of counsel for either Naomi or the petitioner, as they too have failed to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure, particularly Rule 28(b).3
The brief of counsel for Naomi is especially illustrative of this failure to comply with our Rules.4 We shall hereafter encourage our clerk of court to reject briefs filed by counsel admitted to practice law before our court that so obviosly fail to comply with our rules.
In a proceeding to determine whether or not a child is a deprived child, which could ultimately result in termination of parental rights, where we must, on appeal, try the case de novo5 and are unable to apply Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., compliance with Rule 28(e), N.D.R.App.P., is especially important.6
[153]*153At our request made at the close of the oral arguments, in light of the paucity of material in the briefs, counsel for the petitioner filed a supplemental brief asserting “G]ust because the Supreme Court is hearing this matter based upon a limited ‘de novo’ proceeding, does not automatically shift the burden of sustaining one’s position from the appellant to the appellee.”
In support of this position, counsel quotes from Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Cusick, 369 Mich. 269, 284, 120 N.W.2d 1, 8 (1963):
“The following record of reasons for remand is entered upon our scroll. It is based squarely on that fundamental tenet of equity; that a hearing of de novo means exactly what the dictionary says, a hearing afresh, and that if, upon exercise of that ‘independent’ judgment which in equity cases is due from us, it appears that the appellant burden-bearer has not sustained his burden, either affirmance or remand — for more proof — should be ordered.”
It should be noted that Cusick did not involve an issue of deprivation and custody, but involved an issue over a life insurance policy.
In Cusick the plaintiff had accused a deceased person of fraud. Notwithstanding that the court said that the corporation failed to sustain that burden below and failed to sustain it in the supreme court, the Supreme Court of Michigan remanded the case for the taking of further testimony.
In this case we see no need for a remand for the taking of further testimony, but we do see a need for stressing that in deprivation cases the burden of disproving the presumption that a parent is fit and suitable rests upon the person challenging it. In the Interest of M.C.C., Foster v. B.J.C., 277 N.W.2d 281 (N.D.1979); In re J.V., 185 N.W.2d 487, 492 (N.D.1971).
We have reviewed the entire record, particularly in light of the references to the pages and lines of the transcript which we elicited from counsel for Naomi in oral argument, and conclude that the evidence as contained in the entire transcript bears out the findings of the juvenile court.
Our statute defines a deprived child as one who “[i]s without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals, and the deprivation is not due primarily to the lack of financial means of his parents, guardian, or other custodian” (§ 27-20-02(5)(a), N.D.C.C.). As the statute indicates, deprivation may involve emotional as well as physical health. In this case, as indicated by the juvenile court’s findings7 and as sustained by the [154]*154transcript, although both are involved, emotional health is that which is most affected at this time.
Without attempting to detail the facts as they are borne out by the transcript, we conclude that the child is a deprived child.
Our analysis of Mr. N.’s brief and his argument in our court is that as he has never personally physically abused his daughter, the judgment is in error. As this case is permeated with emotional issues and instability in the home arising therefrom, his argument relative to physical abuse is irrelevant.
We have held that where one parent could not prevent another parent in the home from causing a child to be deprived, the child was deprived and termination of both parent’s rights were justified, notwithstanding that one parent’s conduct was active and the other parent’s conduct was passive. In the Interest of K.P., McGurren v. E.D. (& R.D.), 267 N.W.2d 1, 5 (N.D.1978). See also In re J.Z., 190 N.W.2d 27, 35 (N.D.1971), in which we affirmed termination of a mother’s parental rights because of her passive acceptance of her husband’s abuse of their infant. Although in this case the parents had for a time lived apart as distinguished from the facts in McGurren, the evidence supports the conclusion that even when the parents lived apart, the mother so dominated the father that he forced Naomi to return to the mother’s home by taking her clothes to the mother’s home.
Mr. N. has also urged that since the Social Service Board did not attempt in his view to carry out the requirement of part 8. of the judgment, asking the Board to assist the family in reuniting, that the judgment should be set aside. This is a matter properly to be considered by the juvenile court, not by this court on appeal. It is not a basis for setting aside the judgment.
In addition, Mr. N. contended in oral argument that the judgment should be set aside because evidence in the record is not supported by eye witness testimony. His argument seems to be that any judgment based upon circumstantial evidence is defective and should be set aside. His argument is not persuasive, inasmuch as circumstantial evidence is acceptable in both civil and criminal cases. State v. Wilson, 267 N.W.2d 550, 554 (N.D.1978); In re J.Z., supra at 35; State v. Carroll, 123 N.W.2d 659, 667-669 (N.D.1963).
Because deprivation hearings involve the relationship of parties within the home and out of the view of the public, a rule which would prohibit the use of circumstantial evidence would be detrimental to the welfare of the child, and as in the last analysis it is the child with whom we are the most deeply concerned, such a rule would be counterproductive. We obviously must reject such a rule.
For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
SAND, and PEDERSON, JJ., and MUG-GLI, D. J., concur.
MUGGLI, District Judge, sitting in place of PAULSON, J., disqualified.
VANDE WALLE, J., disqualified.