## Facts

- E.B. was a 15-year-old boy living with his mother in Cass County, North Dakota.
- During an informal adjustment in May 1978, E.B. admitted committing the unruly act of truancy during the 1977–78 school year and was placed on probation by a juvenile supervisor.
- E.B.’s mother had difficulty controlling him, and he did not obey her.
- In the 1978–79 school year, E.B. missed 18 days of school between September 5, 1978, and January 30, 1979; six and one-half of those days were unexcused.
- School officials observed a developing pattern of nonattendance, and on January 30, 1979, the State filed a petition alleging E.B. was an “unruly child” because he was “habitually and without justification truant from school” under N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-02(4)(a).
- E.B. moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the statutory terms “habitually” and “without justification” were unconstitutionally vague.
- The juvenile supervisor denied the motion and found E.B. to be an unruly child; the district court confirmed, and E.B. appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-02(4)(a), defining an “unruly child” as one who is “habitually and without justification truant from school,” is unconstitutionally vague under due process.
2. Whether the State was required to prove that E.B.’s absences were “willful” as a separate element, in addition to proving habitual truancy without justification.
3. Whether the evidence (including six and one-half unexcused absences within 18 missed days) was sufficient to support a finding that E.B. was habitually and without justification truant.
4. What scope of review the Supreme Court applies in juvenile matters under N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-56.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court order confirming the juvenile supervisor’s finding that E.B. was an unruly child.
- Under N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-56, the Supreme Court reviewed the juvenile court record in a manner similar to the former trial-de-novo procedure: it gave appreciable weight to factual findings but was not limited by the civil “clearly erroneous” standard.
- The court held § 27-20-02(4)(a) was not unconstitutionally vague; “habitually” and “without justification” provided a workable standard for applying the truancy definition.
- The court rejected E.B.’s claim that the State had to prove willfulness as an added element beyond the statutory requirements.
- The court concluded the record supported the finding of habitual, unjustified truancy, considering E.B.’s pattern of absences and his prior truancy admission and probation.

## Legal Principles

- A statute is not void for vagueness if it gives reasonable notice of the conduct covered and provides a usable standard for decisionmaking; ordinary terms may satisfy due process when applied to concrete facts.
- Under N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-02(4)(a), an “unruly child” includes a child who is habitually truant without justification; the court declined to add a separate willfulness element not stated in the definition.
- “Habitually” truant is evaluated from the pattern and circumstances shown in the record rather than by a fixed numerical cutoff.
- In appeals under N.D. Cent. Code § 27-20-56, the Supreme Court independently reviews the files, record, and transcript, while giving appreciable weight to the juvenile court’s fact determinations.

## Conclusion

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed E.B.’s adjudication as an unruly child, holding that the statutory terms “habitually” and “without justification” in the juvenile truancy definition were sufficiently definite, that the State was not required to prove a separate willfulness element, and that E.B.’s repeated absences—viewed along with his prior truancy admission and probation—supported the finding of habitual, unjustified truancy.


In re E.B., 287 N.W.2d 462 (1980)