## Facts

- M.B. and N.B. are the minor children of I.B. (father) and K.S. (mother).
- The children had diagnoses including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and exhibited symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
- The children witnessed domestic violence between their parents; the mother testified the father abused the children.
- A therapist and the mother testified the children were exposed in the father’s home to pornographic and horror movies and to sexual activity occurring in their presence.
- The therapist testified the children reported insufficient food at the father’s home and showed behavioral deterioration around their parents.
- The juvenile court adjudicated the children deprived in April 2002 and placed them in social services custody; they were reunified after counseling, but therapy stopped after reunification.
- After the parents separated again, the juvenile court again adjudicated the children deprived in July and October 2003 and returned them to social services custody.
- In July 2004, a Cass County social worker petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights; the mother consented, and the father appeared after notice by publication to contest termination and sought continued visitation.
- After trial, the juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights and denied continued visitation.

## Issues

1. Whether notice by publication, under the circumstances, provided constitutionally and statutorily sufficient notice to permit termination of the father’s parental rights.
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination by proving deprivation, likely continuation of the causes of deprivation, and likely serious harm to the children if parental rights were not terminated.
3. Whether the juvenile court erred in denying the father’s request for continued visitation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the orders terminating the father’s parental rights and denying continued visitation.
- The court held the father received sufficient notice and was not denied due process, emphasizing that he actually appeared and defended.
- The court held clear and convincing evidence supported findings of deprivation, likely continuation of the conditions causing deprivation, and likely serious harm absent termination.
- The court held denial of continued visitation was not error given the findings supporting termination and the children’s welfare.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the child is deprived; (2) the deprivation’s causes and conditions are likely to continue or will not be remedied; and (3) the child is likely to suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm without termination.
- Prior deprivation adjudications, ongoing exposure to domestic violence and sexually inappropriate environments, and neglect can support deprivation and likely-harm findings.
- A history of failed or discontinued remedial efforts, including lack of sustained participation in therapy or services, supports a finding that the causes of deprivation are likely to continue.
- Notice by publication may satisfy due process when permitted by law; actual notice and participation in the proceeding weigh strongly against claims of prejudice from alleged notice defects.
- Continued visitation following termination-related findings is assessed based on the children’s welfare and is not a parental entitlement.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed termination of the father’s parental rights because the father had adequate notice and the record clearly and convincingly showed the children were deprived, the harmful conditions were likely to persist, and continued parental rights posed a probable risk of serious harm; the court also upheld denial of continued visitation based on the same welfare findings.


In re M.B. & N.B., 709 N.W.2d 11 (N.D. 2006)