The North Dakota Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court's decision to terminate a father's parental rights, clearing the way for a step-parent adoption in a case that involved child pornography convictions and claims of abandonment.
In *Adoption of G.M.H.* (N.D. 2025), the state's high court rejected all arguments raised by D.A.D., the biological father of G.M.H., who appealed the termination of his parental rights. Justice Bahr wrote the opinion for the court, which unanimously affirmed the district court's ruling.
The case stems from a petition filed by D.A.H., the step-parent, and K.R.H., the mother, seeking to terminate D.A.D.'s parental rights and proceed with a step-parent adoption. The North Dakota Department of Human Services was named as a respondent in the proceedings.
D.A.D. and K.R.H. are the biological parents of G.M.H., who was born in 2020. The couple separated in June 2022, and D.A.D. was arrested three months later in September 2022. In April 2023, he was convicted of four counts of possession of child pornography and was subsequently incarcerated for approximately 34 months.
During his incarceration period, D.A.D. had no contact with his child. While serving his sentence, D.A.D. filed for divorce from K.R.H. The divorce judgment included provisions for supervised parenting time upon D.A.D.'s release, but this was conditional on D.A.D. providing K.R.H. with specific information regarding his release terms and conditions, registration requirements, and completion of any required treatment programming.
In April 2025, D.A.H. and K.R.H. filed their petition for termination of parental rights and adoption. The case proceeded to a hearing in the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, before Judge Kristi P. Venhuizen in August 2025.
Following the hearing, the district court issued its order in September 2025, terminating D.A.D.'s parental rights. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that D.A.D. had abandoned G.M.H., though the full details of the court's findings were not included in the available portions of the Supreme Court opinion.
D.A.D. appealed the district court's decision, raising multiple constitutional and procedural challenges. His appeal included four primary arguments: that the court clearly erred in finding he abandoned G.M.H.; that the court clearly erred in finding his parental rights should be terminated due to his misconduct, fault, or neglect; that the court abused its discretion when it terminated his parental rights; and that the court's application of N.D.C.C. § 14-15-01 violated his constitutional rights.
The North Dakota Supreme Court rejected all of D.A.D.'s arguments and affirmed the district court's termination order. The opinion, designated as 2025 ND 208, represents a significant ruling in North Dakota family law, particularly regarding parental rights termination in cases involving criminal convictions and incarceration.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court by Mitchell R. Lucas, who appeared under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, alongside Ward K. Johnson III for the appellant father. Kelsey L. Hankey represented the petitioners and appellees.
Parental rights termination cases require courts to apply the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, a heightened burden of proof that falls between the "preponderance of evidence" standard used in most civil cases and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal cases. This elevated standard reflects the fundamental nature of parental rights and the permanent consequences of termination.
The ruling has implications for similar cases involving incarcerated parents and step-parent adoptions in North Dakota. While the specific details of the court's reasoning on each issue were not fully available in the provided excerpts, the affirmance suggests the Supreme Court found the district court properly applied the relevant statutory and constitutional standards.
Step-parent adoptions often arise when a biological parent's rights are terminated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, allowing the step-parent to legally adopt the child. These cases can be particularly complex when they involve contested terminations, as biological parents retain fundamental constitutional rights to their children that can only be severed under specific statutory circumstances.
The case reflects the ongoing challenges courts face in balancing parental rights with child welfare considerations, particularly when a parent's criminal conduct intersects with their ability to maintain a relationship with their child. The fact that D.A.D. was incarcerated for crimes involving child pornography likely influenced the court's analysis of both abandonment and the child's best interests.
With the Supreme Court's affirmance, D.A.H. and K.R.H. can now proceed with the step-parent adoption, legally formalizing D.A.H.'s relationship with G.M.H. The ruling represents the final resolution of D.A.D.'s parental rights, as appeals from state supreme court decisions in family law matters are rarely accepted by federal courts absent federal constitutional issues.