In Interest of L.F

31 Citing cases

  1. In re Z.R. v. T.V

    602 N.W.2d 723 (N.D. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    In Interest of A.S., 1998 ND 181, ¶ 15, 584 N.W.2d 853. The State must prove all three elements by clear and convincing evidence. In Interest of L.F., 1998 ND 129, ¶ 10, 580 N.W.2d 573. On appeal, we review the juvenile court's decision regarding termination of parental rights and examine the evidence in a manner similar to a trial de novo.In Interest of A.S., 1998 ND 181, ¶ 13, 584 N.W.2d 853. We review the files, records, and minutes or transcript of the evidence of the juvenile court, giving appreciable weight to the findings of the juvenile court. N.D.C.C. § 27-20-56(1).

  2. In the Interest of C.R.C

    2001 N.D. 83 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 8 times
    Suggesting the clearly erroneous standard of review, rather than the de novo standard, should be applied in juvenile cases

    [¶ 6] Parents have fundamental and natural rights to their children which is constitutionally protected; however, their rights are not absolute or unconditional, and parents must provide care that satisfies minimum community standards. In the Interest of L.F., 1998 ND 129, ¶ 9, 580 N.W.2d 573. Due process provides certain procedural protections before the parent-child relationship may be terminated. In the Interest of A.S., 1998 ND 181, ¶ 14, 584 N.W.2d 853. Absent abandonment or consent, termination of parental rights requires satisfaction of a three-pronged test in which the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the child is deprived; (2) the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied; and (3) the child is suffering, or will probably suffer, serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm by reason of the deprivation.

  3. In re D.N

    2001 N.D. 71 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    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:

  4. In the Interest of W.E

    2000 N.D. 208 (N.D. 2000)   Cited 6 times

    [¶ 10] Evidence of past deprivation, although a factor to consider, is not sufficient to terminate parental rights. D.F.G., 1999 ND 216, ¶ 20, 602 N.W.2d 697 (citing In the Interest of L.F., 1998 ND 129, ¶ 16, 580 N.W.2d 573). Prognostic evidence is required to determine deprivation is likely to continue.

  5. In Interest of A.S

    1998 N.D. 181 (N.D. 1998)   Cited 23 times
    Rejecting a mother's request for a second chance, as unfortunately the deprived child will not be given a first chance unless immediately placed in a stable environment and given what precious little time remains to create a bonding relationship

    [¶ 13] "On appeal, we review the juvenile court's decision to terminate parental rights and examine the evidence in a manner similar to a trial de novo." In Interest of L.F., 1998 ND 129, ¶ 12, 580 N.W.2d 573 (citing In Interest of L.J., 436 N.W.2d 558, 560 (N.D. 1989)). We will review the "files, records, and minutes or transcript of the evidence of the juvenile court, giving appreciable weight to the findings of the juvenile court."

  6. In the Interest of A.S

    2007 N.D. 83 (N.D. 2007)   Cited 7 times

    [¶ 18] A lack of parental co-operation is relevant to the determination of whether deprivation will continue. Interest of L.F., 1998 ND 129, ¶ 17, 580 N.W.2d 573. "Evidence of the parent's background, including previous incidents of abuse and deprivation, may be considered in determining whether deprivation is likely to continue. Evidence of past or present deprivation, however, is not alone sufficient to terminate parental rights, rather there must be prognostic evidence.

  7. In re Guardianship of Barros

    2005 N.D. 122 (N.D. 2005)   Cited 18 times
    Concluding that "evidentiary burden placed on the nonparent ... is a preponderance of the evidence" in termination of guardianship proceeding

    Parents have a fundamental, natural right to their children which is of constitutional dimension. In re L.F., 1998 ND 129, ¶ 9, 580 N.W.2d 573; Kleingartner v. D.P.A.B., 310 N.W.2d 575, 578 (N.D. 1981). The right is paramount.

  8. In the Interest of K.S

    2002 N.D. 164 (N.D. 2002)   Cited 13 times

    [¶ 17] To determine whether the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue, evidence of past or present deprivation alone is insufficient to terminate parental rights, and there must be prognostic evidence that deprivation will continue or be unremedied. In Interest of L.F., 1998 ND 129, ¶ 16, 580 N.W.2d 573. We have defined prognostic evidence as evidence that forms the basis for a reasonable prediction as to future behavior.

  9. In the Interest of D.R. and S.R

    636 N.W.2d 412 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    Evidence of a parent's background, including previous incidents of abuse and deprivation, may be considered in determining whether deprivation is likely to continue. In Interest of L.F., 1998 ND 129, ¶ 16, 580 N.W.2d 573. Evidence of past or present deprivation, however, is not alone sufficient to terminate parental rights, and there must be prognostic evidence that deprivation will continue or be unremedied. Id. This Court has defined prognostic evidence as evidence that forms the basis of reasonable predication as to future behavior.

  10. Interest of R.O. v. F.O

    2001 N.D. 137 (N.D. 2001)   Cited 5 times

    N.D.C.C. § 27-20-44(1)(b). See In Interest of A.S., 1998 ND 181, ¶ 15, 584 N.W.2d 853; In Interest of L.F., 1998 ND 129, ¶ 10, 580 N.W.2d 573. The State must prove the elements for termination by clear and convincing evidence.