Interest of D.M.H.
This text of 2019 ND 88 (Interest of D.M.H.) 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
Filed 3/21/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2019 ND 88
Interest of D.M.H., a child
State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
D.M.H., child, J.D.H., father, J.H.T., guardian, L.H.T., guardian, and Lisa Larsen, Lay Guardian Ad Litem, Respondents
and
S.L.S., Respondent and Appellant
No. 20180313
Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Jay D. Knudson, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Per Curiam.
Nancy D. Yon, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, N.D., for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.
Rhiannon L. Gorham, Grand Forks, N.D., for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief. Interest of D.M.H. No. 20180313
Per Curiam. [¶1] S.L.S., the mother of D.M.H., a minor child, appeals from the juvenile court’s order appointing the child’s paternal grandparents as legal guardians for D.M.H. The juvenile court did not establish a visitation schedule for S.L.S. Her parental rights have not been terminated. S.L.S. argues the juvenile court should have included a visitation schedule in its order rather than delegate visitation decisions to the child’s guardians. The State agrees with S.L.S. and joins her request for a remand for the juvenile court to establish a visitation schedule. [¶2] We summarily reverse under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b) and remand for further proceedings. Interest of G.L., 2018 ND 176, ¶ 15, 915 N.W.2d 685 (holding a juvenile court may not delegate parental visitation to a child’s guardian). We remand for a determination by the juvenile court whether visitation “is likely to endanger the child’s physical or emotional health.” Id. at ¶ 14; N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2). If the juvenile court finds that visitation between S.L.S. and D.M.H. is not a danger to the child, it must order an appropriate visitation schedule. [¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Donovan J. Foughty, D.J.
[¶4] The Honorable Donovan J. Foughty, D.J., sitting in place of Jensen, J., disqualified.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2019 ND 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interest-of-dmh-nd-2019.