In Re DN
This text of 2001 ND 71 (In Re DN) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the Interest of D.N., D.N., and C.N., Children.
Constance L. CLEVELAND, Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
R.N., Father, D.N., Mother, Respondents and Appellants, and
D.N., D.N., and C.N., children, and Mark A. Beauchene, Guardian Ad Litem, Respondents.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
*687 Constance Louise Cleveland, Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, ND, for petitioner and appellee.
Steven D. Mottinger, Fargo, ND, for respondents and appellants.
MARING, Justice.
[¶ 1] R.N. ("Randy")[1] and D.N. ("Denise") appealed from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to their three children, D.N. ("Dustin"), age 16, D.N. ("Donny"), age 11, and C.N. ("Cheryl"), age 9. We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence the children are deprived, the causes and conditions of the deprivation are likely to continue and, as a result of the continued deprivation, the children will probably suffer serious physical, mental, or emotional harm if Randy and Denise's parental rights are not terminated. We affirm.
I
[¶ 2] Under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(1)(b)(1) a juvenile court may terminate parental rights, providing (1) the child is a deprived child; (2) the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue; and (3) the child is suffering, or will in the future, probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm. The party seeking parental termination must prove all elements by clear and convincing evidence. In re C.R., 1999 ND 221, ¶ 4, 602 N.W.2d 520. On appeal, we review the juvenile court's decision and examine the evidence in a manner similar to a trial de novo. Id. We review the files, records, and transcript of the evidence in the juvenile court, giving appreciable weight to the findings of the juvenile court. Id. Although we are not bound by the juvenile court's findings, we recognize the juvenile court's opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses. In Interest of L.F., 1998 ND 129, ¶ 12, 580 N.W.2d 573.
[¶ 3] At the conclusion of the hearing in this case, the juvenile court made the following relevant findings:
*688 [T]he minor children are deprived children and ... the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedie[d] and by reason thereof, the children are suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral or emotional harm.
[A]lthough the natural parents indicate a desire to improve, they're unable to demonstrate to this Court the present capacity or capacity within the near future to be an adequate parent.
[P]rognostic evidence shows that the parents are presently unable to supply the physical and emotional care for the children and this inability will continue for time enough to render improbable the successful simulation [sic] of the children into the parent family, if the parents' rights are not terminated.
... Cass County Social Services has provided services to the parents in an attempt to remedy the causes of the deprivation and these attempts have not only been reasonable, but have exhausted all that is available and appropriate.
[T]here is no basis to believe that there will be any significant improvement of the ability of either parent if given more time and that it is likely that the causes of the deprivation will not end and cannot be remedied.
The record evidence supports these findings.
[¶ 4] A deprived child is one who "[i]s without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control 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, guardian, or other custodian." N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(8)(a). On three separate occasions, beginning November 24, 1998, these parents stipulated their children are deprived children. On appeal, Randy and Denise do not dispute the trial court's finding their children are deprived. Rather, the parents argue there is not clear and convincing evidence the deprivation of the children will continue and will result in harm to them.
II
[¶ 5] The three children have been in foster care since August 1998, when they were removed from the parents' home after Randy threatened suicide with a loaded pistol pointed to his head in the presence of the children, whereupon he ordered one of them to conduct a countdown. Randy did not fire the pistol, but the record evidence shows he has made several similar suicide threats in the presence of the children.
[¶ 6] Cass County Social Services has conducted 18 child protection assessments since 1990, after receiving reports from various sources who were concerned the parents may have been physically and emotionally abusive to the children. Forrest Ammerman, a social worker employed by the Cass County Social Services Board, testified these assessments confirmed "incidents of harsh parenting and domestic violence."
[¶ 7] Elizabeth Faust, M.D., Medical Director at the Southeast Human Service Center, diagnosed Randy as suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder "of a chronic and very severe nature." Dr. Faust concluded Randy "is still significantly disabled with respect to problem-solving and ability to complete tasks and obligations." In her opinion placing the children back into the parents' home would "likely overwhelm [Randy's] coping abilities." Dr. Faust has prescribed medicine for Randy's condition and she said he has shown improvement when he is taking the medication. However, the record shows Randy has neglected to take his medicine for substantial periods of time. Dr. Faust stated Randy's disorder requires, in addition to medication, behavioral therapy, but such therapy has not been provided to Randy because of his inability to recognize the seriousness of his *689 condition and his unwillingness to comply with such treatment.
[¶ 8] Dr. Dwight Lysne, a board certified child adolescent psychiatrist, has worked with this family for about seven years. Dr. Lysne concluded Randy suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder, a condition in which there is coequal disturbance of mood and thinking, combined with symptoms of paranoia, resulting in Randy having a level of mistrust that is "a significant factor in his resistance and noncompliance with treatment." Dr. Lysne characterizes Randy's illness as "a severe psychiatric condition" through which "his volatile temper, poor impulse control, and severe mistrust of others places him at a chronic risk of harm to himself or others." Dr. Lysne concluded that although the children's paternal grandmother provided some protection for the children prior to her death in January 1998, the children have "been chronically at risk due to [Randy's] psychiatric disability" and the impact of this disability on the children's safety "is greater in the aftermath of their grandmother's death."
[¶ 9] The record shows that Denise, while not suffering the same type of disabling conditions as Randy, has been unwilling to separate from Randy or to protect the children from his physical and emotional abuse.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2001 ND 71, 624 N.W.2d 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dn-nd-2001.