The North Dakota Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court's decision protecting a biological father's parental rights in a contested adoption case, reinforcing the high legal standard required to terminate parental rights even when other parties seek adoption.

In *Adoption of M.L.P.* (N.D. 2026), the state's highest court rejected an appeal by birthmother S.L.W. and her partner J.M.P., who sought to terminate biological father C.M.T.'s parental rights to allow J.M.P. to adopt the child. The Supreme Court issued a brief per curiam opinion affirming the Stark County District Court's denial of the termination petition.

The case centered on fundamental questions about when the law permits severing the parent-child relationship. Judge Rhonda R. Ehlis of the Southwest Judicial District originally denied the petition, finding that the petitioners failed to meet the statutory requirements for termination.

The Supreme Court's opinion emphasized that while parents possess a fundamental constitutional right to raise their children, this right "is not absolute or unconditional." The court cited its recent precedent in *Interest of B.F.* (2025), establishing that parental rights may only be terminated "in circumstances provided by law."

Under North Dakota Century Code Section 14-15-19(3), a parent-child relationship may be terminated in connection with adoption only upon proof of specific statutory grounds. These include abandonment, proof that due to misconduct, faults, habits, neglect, or incapacity the child lacks proper parental care and is suffering or likely to suffer serious harm, or proof that a noncustodial parent is unreasonably withholding consent to adoption contrary to the child's best interests.

The legal standard for such termination proceedings is deliberately high. The court noted that the party seeking termination bears the burden of proving all statutory elements by "clear and convincing evidence," a standard more demanding than the typical "preponderance of the evidence" used in most civil cases but less than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal matters.

This evidentiary standard reflects the gravity of permanently severing the parent-child relationship. Courts recognize that terminating parental rights represents one of the most severe interventions the state can make in family relationships, effectively ending the legal bond between parent and child forever.

The Supreme Court's affirmance suggests the district court properly concluded that S.L.W. and J.M.P. failed to establish the required statutory grounds through clear and convincing evidence. The opinion does not detail the specific facts that led to this conclusion, but the result indicates that C.M.T.'s conduct did not rise to the level that would justify terminating his parental rights.

Adoption proceedings involving contested parental rights termination often involve complex family dynamics. Birthmothers may seek to facilitate adoption by new partners, while biological fathers assert their constitutional rights to maintain relationships with their children. Courts must balance competing interests while adhering to strict legal standards designed to protect fundamental parental rights.

The North Dakota Supreme Court's decision reflects broader legal principles governing parental rights across jurisdictions. Most states require similar statutory grounds and evidentiary standards before courts will terminate parental rights, recognizing these rights as among the most fundamental protected by the Constitution.

The case also highlights the role of state agencies in adoption proceedings. The North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services was named as a respondent, reflecting the state's interest in child welfare and adoption procedures.

Legal representation in the case included Quinn A. Harmon of Bismarck representing the petitioners and appellants, while Mark C. Sherer of Dickinson represented the biological father. The involvement of experienced family law attorneys underscores the complexity and importance of parental rights termination proceedings.

The Supreme Court's brief per curiam opinion suggests the legal issues were relatively straightforward, with established precedent clearly governing the outcome. Per curiam opinions, issued by the court as a whole rather than authored by individual justices, typically address cases where the law is well-settled.

For practitioners in family law, the decision reinforces existing standards and reminds attorneys of the substantial burden required to terminate parental rights. The case serves as a reminder that good intentions or desires to facilitate adoption cannot overcome the fundamental constitutional protections afforded to biological parents.

The ruling also demonstrates North Dakota's commitment to protecting parental rights while maintaining appropriate legal mechanisms for termination when statutory requirements are met. This balance reflects the state's recognition that while family structures may change, the law must provide clear standards for when such changes can be legally imposed rather than voluntarily agreed upon.

Moving forward, the decision stands as precedent reinforcing that parental rights termination requires meeting specific statutory criteria through clear and convincing evidence, regardless of other parties' desire to pursue adoption.