The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a juvenile court order terminating a mother's parental rights to two minor children, upholding key findings while remanding for additional determinations required under state law governing Indian families.
In a per curiam decision issued in *Interest of J.C. and S.C.Y.*, the state's high court rejected the mother's appeal challenging the Ward County Juvenile Court's termination order. The mother, identified as P.D., had appealed the termination of her parental rights to children J.C. and S.C.Y., whose father A.Y. is deceased.
The case originated in the Juvenile Court of Ward County, where Judicial Referee Kelly A. Dillon presided over proceedings that ultimately led to the termination order. The State of North Dakota served as petitioner and appellee, while the mother served as respondent and appellant in the Supreme Court proceedings.
In her appeal, the mother challenged multiple aspects of the juvenile court's decision. She argued the court erred in finding the children were in need of protection, that the causes of the need for protection are likely to continue and will not be remedied, and that the children have suffered harm as a result of these circumstances.
The mother also raised specific arguments regarding Indian family protections under state law. She contended the court erred in terminating her parental rights without first finding that active efforts had been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative services designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that these efforts had proved unsuccessful.
The North Dakota Supreme Court's decision addressed these arguments systematically. The court affirmed the juvenile court's findings regarding the children's need for protection, the likelihood that causes of this need would continue without remedy, and that the children had suffered harm as a result of their circumstances. The court cited its previous decision in *Interest of J.C.*, 2025 ND 217, ¶ 13, in support of these findings.
However, the Supreme Court recognized the need for additional proceedings regarding the Indian family protections raised by the mother. Rather than fully resolving all issues, the court retained jurisdiction and remanded the case to the juvenile court for specified findings on active efforts under N.D.C.C. § 27-19.1-01(2).
This remand requirement reflects the specific procedural protections afforded to Indian families under North Dakota law. The statute requires courts to make specific findings about active efforts to provide remedial and rehabilitative services before terminating parental rights in cases involving Indian families.
The case demonstrates the intersection of child protection proceedings with Indian family rights under state law. While the Supreme Court was satisfied with the underlying findings regarding the children's need for protection and the harm they had suffered, it recognized the importance of ensuring compliance with statutory requirements designed to protect Indian families from unnecessary separation.
The State of North Dakota was represented by Rozanna C. Larson, State's Attorney from Minot. The mother was represented by Meredith K. Childress of Rugby. The case proceeded through the North Central Judicial District before reaching the state's highest court.
The Supreme Court's per curiam decision reflects unanimous agreement among the justices on the case's disposition. Per curiam decisions are issued by the court as a whole rather than attributed to individual justices, typically in cases where the legal principles are well-established or the decision is straightforward.
The case numbers 20250378 and 20250379 indicate this matter involved consolidated appeals for both children, allowing the court to address their cases together given the shared factual and legal circumstances.
While the Supreme Court affirmed the core findings supporting termination, the remand for additional findings on active efforts means the case will return to the juvenile court for further proceedings. The trial court must make specific determinations about whether adequate efforts were made to provide services designed to keep the Indian family together before the termination can be finalized.
This case illustrates the careful balance courts must strike in child protection cases involving Indian families, ensuring both child safety and compliance with statutory protections designed to preserve family unity where possible. The Supreme Court's decision preserves the juvenile court's findings on child protection while ensuring full compliance with procedural requirements under state law.
The matter represents one of many cases where state courts must navigate the complex intersection of child welfare law and protections for Indian families, reflecting ongoing efforts to protect both child safety and family preservation rights under North Dakota law.