The North Dakota Supreme Court has summarily affirmed a juvenile court's order terminating a father's parental rights to his child, issuing a brief per curiam decision that upholds the lower court's findings under North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
The case, *Interest of S.M.*, involved T.B., Jr., who appealed the Burleigh County Juvenile Court's order terminating his parental rights to his child, S.M. The child's mother, R.M., is deceased, according to court records. The appeal was heard from the South Central Judicial District under Judicial Referee Kendra M. Richard.
In its brief opinion, the Supreme Court applied the clearly erroneous standard of review established under North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) for juvenile court findings of fact in parental termination proceedings. The court cited precedent from *In re A.C.* (2022 ND 123), which established that under this standard, the court will "affirm the decision of the juvenile court unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if, on the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made."
The opinion references additional precedent from *In re A.L.E.* (2018 ND 257) to support the application of this review standard. This clearly erroneous standard represents a deferential approach to reviewing lower court factual findings, requiring appellate courts to give substantial weight to the juvenile court's determinations.
A significant aspect of this case involves the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which the court noted governs the proceedings. The ICWA requires "affirmative, active, thorough" compliance with federal standards designed to protect the rights of Native American children and families in custody and adoption proceedings. The act establishes heightened procedural and substantive requirements for cases involving Native American children, including specific notice requirements, preference for placement with Native American families, and elevated standards of proof for termination of parental rights.
The case was represented by Mary E. Melech, Assistant State's Attorney from Bismarck, for the petitioner and appellee State of North Dakota. Brooke A. Benson, also from Bismarck, represented the respondent and appellant father. Both parties submitted their arguments on brief rather than through oral argument.
Sharla Price served as Guardian ad Litem for the child, representing S.M.'s best interests throughout the proceedings. Guardian ad litem appointments are standard practice in parental termination cases to ensure independent advocacy for the child's welfare.
The Supreme Court's decision to issue a summary affirmance under Rule 35.1(a)(2) and (4) indicates the court found the appeal lacked merit sufficient to warrant a full written opinion. Summary affirmances are typically used when the issues presented do not raise novel legal questions or when the lower court's decision is clearly supported by existing law and evidence.
Parental rights termination cases represent some of the most serious proceedings in family law, permanently severing the legal relationship between parent and child. Courts must find clear and convincing evidence that termination serves the child's best interests and that statutory grounds for termination exist. In cases involving ICWA, additional federal protections apply, including requirements for qualified expert witness testimony and proof beyond a reasonable doubt in some circumstances.
The case number 20260006 reflects proceedings that began in 2026, indicating this is a recent matter working through North Dakota's court system. The involvement of ICWA suggests S.M. is an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for enrollment, triggering the federal act's protections.
While the Supreme Court's opinion provides limited detail about the underlying circumstances leading to the termination order, the summary affirmance suggests the juvenile court properly applied applicable law and made findings supported by sufficient evidence. The father's appeal challenged these determinations, but the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the lower court's decision.
This case adds to North Dakota's body of precedent in parental termination matters involving ICWA compliance. The summary disposition indicates the court viewed the issues as settled under existing law rather than presenting questions requiring extended analysis or clarification of legal standards.
The decision will stand as final unless the father seeks further review, though options for additional appeal in state court are limited following a Supreme Court decision. The termination order will remain in effect, permanently ending T.B.'s parental rights to S.M.