IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 135

In the Interest of G.R.D., a child

State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

G.R.D., a minor child, Respondent

and 

A.D., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20230023

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central

Judicial District, the Honorable Donald Hager, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

Madison E. Gruber, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for petitioner

and appellee.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent and appellant.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

JULY 19, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Interest of G.R.D. 

No. 20230023

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] A.D. appeals on behalf of her son, G.R.D., from an order issued by the 

Grand Forks County Juvenile Court. She argues the court erred by placing

G.R.D. in the custody of the Division of Juvenile Services. We affirm the court’s 

order. 

I

[¶2] On September 2, 2022, G.R.D. was charged with committing the 

delinquent act of simple assault on his mother. He was detained at the Grand 

Forks County Juvenile Detention Center and subsequently adjudicated as a 

delinquent child. He remained in his mother’s custody and was placed on 

supervised probation for 12 months and ordered to participate in drug court.

[¶3] On November 3, 2022, G.R.D. was detained based on allegations he 

violated conditions of probation and new offenses. The juvenile court ordered 

that G.R.D. remain at the juvenile detention center and undergo diagnostic 

testing. On November 23, 2022, the juvenile court conducted an initial 

appearance on the probation revocation petition and ordered G.R.D to home 

detention in the custody of his mother. G.R.D. was alleged to have used 

methamphetamine within hours of being released into his mother’s custody. 

[¶4] On November 28, 2022, the juvenile court conducted a detention hearing 

and ordered that G.R.D. be detained for again violating his probation. After a

detention review hearing on December 27, 2022, the juvenile court found 

G.R.D. remained a delinquent child and ordered him into the custody of the 

Division of Juvenile Services (DJS) for up to 12 months. The court also ordered 

DJS to place G.R.D. in a treatment center as soon as possible. A.D. timely 

appealed. 

II

[¶5] A.D. argues the juvenile court erred by granting the DJS custody of 

G.R.D. instead of her, and the court’s findings were based on stale evidence. 
2

[¶6] This Court’s standard of review for a juvenile court’s order is well 

established:

“We will not set aside a juvenile court’s findings of fact unless 

we conclude they are clearly erroneous. In re Guardianship of P.T., 

2014 ND 223, ¶ 5, 857 N.W.2d 367 (citing In re T.T., 2004 ND 138, 

¶ 5, 681 N.W.2d 779). ‘A finding of fact is clearly erroneous under 

N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) if there is no evidence to support it, if it is clear 

to the reviewing court that a mistake has been made, or if the 

finding is induced by an erroneous view of the law.’ Id. (citation 

omitted). ‘On appeal, we review the files, records, and minutes or 

the transcript of the evidence, and we give appreciable weight to 

the findings of the juvenile court.’ Id.”

Interest of Guardianship of G.V., 2023 ND 19, ¶ 7, 985 N.W.2d 655.

[¶7] Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a), we do not re-weigh conflicting evidence, and 

we give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of 

witnesses. See Interest of J.S.L., 2009 ND 43, ¶ 12, 763 N.W.2d 783; Brandt v. 

Somerville, 2005 ND 35, ¶ 12, 692 N.W.2d 144. “A trial court’s choice between 

two permissible views of the weight of the evidence is not clearly erroneous, 

and simply because we may have viewed the evidence differently does not 

entitle us to reverse the trial court.” Brandt, at ¶ 12. The court’s findings 

should provide “sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand 

the factual basis for the trial court’s decision.” Id.

A

[¶8] A.D. argues the juvenile court erred by ordering G.R.D. into the DJS’s

custody rather than leaving him in her custody.

[¶9] A.D. requested that G.R.D. remain in her custody rather than being 

placed into the DJS’s custody. A.D. testified she has tried to provide G.R.D. 

with proper care by submitting applications to multiple treatment centers and 

taking him to see psychiatrists. She agreed G.R.D. needs to go to a treatment 

center. She also testified she would like custody over him while he is in 

treatment, and if she had custody she would not remove him until he finished 

his treatment. She testified she has little faith the DJS would be more helpful 
3

than her, but agreed G.R.D. has been unsuccessful with treatment and 

complying with his probation conditions while in her custody. 

[¶10] Juvenile courts have graduated authority to order treatment for 

delinquent children. Under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.4-17(1) a court may take any 

action necessary to ensure a delinquent child receives proper treatment or 

rehabilitation, repair any harm caused by the child, and protect the

community. The law allows a court to place a child in DJS’s custody under 

certain circumstances:

“If the court cannot find a less restrictive alternative, the court 

may commit a child to the division of juvenile services. A risk and 

needs assessment must be the basis for the determination of 

commitment to the division of juvenile services. The court only 

may commit a child to the division for a new delinquent offense. 

Unless all probation extensions have been exhausted, the child’s 

risk and treatment needs continue to be high and the child is 

refusing to comply with the terms of probation, the court may not 

commit a child for a violation of the terms of probation.”

N.D.C.C. § 27-20.4-17(3) (2021).1

[¶11] The DJS is required to take custody of a delinquent child when ordered

by a juvenile court. N.D.C.C. § 27-21-02. Upon taking custody the DJS must 

provide the child with diagnostic testing and evaluations to determine what 

treatment and rehabilitation is in the child’s best interest. N.D.C.C. § 27-21-

02. After testing and evaluation the DJS may place the child in the care of a 

relative, guardian, or foster home, place the child at the North Dakota youth 

correctional center, or place the child in a different treatment and 

rehabilitation institution for children or young adults. N.D.C.C. § 27-21-02(1)-

(3). Procedures for a juvenile’s placement into a more restrictive setting may 

be regulated by the juvenile court. N.D.C.C. § 27-21-02.1.

1N.D.C.C. § 27-20.4-17(3) was amended by S.L. 2023, (H.B. 1160), effective April 13, 2023. The version 

of the statute in effect during the juvenile court hearing applies to this appeal because amended 

statutes generally are not applied retroactively unless legislative intent or history shows otherwise.

N.D.C.C. § 1-20-10; Senger v. Senger, 2022 ND 229, ¶11, 983 N.W.2d 160.
4

[¶12] Here, the juvenile court had authority under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.4-17(3) 

and N.D.C.C. ch. 27-21 to grant custody of G.R.D. to the DJS. After that grant 

of custody, the DJS had authority under N.D.C.C. § 27-21-02 to place G.R.D. in 

the care of enumerated individuals or institutions. The court acted within its 

legal authority by granting custody to the DJS, and permitting the DJS to place 

G.R.D. in an appropriate facility. The court did not misapply the law by 

ordering G.R.D. into the DJS’s custody.

B

[¶13] A.D. argues the juvenile court erred because G.R.D.’s risk assessment 

was “old and factually incorrect.” She claims that the court erred by relying on 

an assessment and screening done in July 2022 when the hearing was 

conducted on December 27, 2022, and that the documents were factually 

incorrect because G.R.D.’s application for a particular placement no longer was 

pending. 

[¶14] At the most recent detention hearing, G.R.D.’s probation officer testified 

about G.R.D.’s history with probation and detention. The officer testified she 

believes it is necessary for the DJS to have custody of G.R.D. so he will fully 

participate in treatment and recovery programs. She expressed doubts that

A.D. would follow through with G.R.D.’s treatment. The officer testified that 

G.R.D.’s multiple noncompliances with home detention and probation shows 

A.D. cannot handle her son’s problems alone. The officer also testified that, if 

A.D. has custody of G.R.D., she could place him in a treatment center and check 

him out whenever she or G.R.D. wants. 

[¶15] In addition to the probation officer’s testimony, the State introduced

G.R.D.’s juvenile predispositional report. The document reported G.R.D.’s risk 

assessment score was “high.” The areas contributing to G.R.D.’s high risk and 

need for treatment were based on checkbox items including his history of 

offenses, attitude, mental health, aggression, community or peers, skills, 

alcohol and drug use, and “family issues.” The report stated “DJS custody is 

recommended; all community options have been exhausted through Juvenile 

Court and [G.R.D.] needs a higher level of treatment and rehabilitation.” 
5

[¶16] After the hearing, the juvenile court found G.R.D. needs treatment. The 

court also found G.R.D. has a history of being placed on probation and violating 

his probation conditions. It found that G.R.D.’s risks and needs are high, and 

that A.D. has been unable to control G.R.D.’s behaviors while on probation in 

her custody. The court found probation extensions have been exhausted and no 

less restrictive alternatives exist to assist G.R.D. with treatment. Based on 

these findings the juvenile court ordered removal of G.R.D. from A.D.’s custody 

and put him in the custody of the DJS, as permitted under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.4-

17(3). The court also ordered the DJS place G.R.D. into a treatment center as 

soon as possible, which is allowed under N.D.C.C. § 27-21-02.

[¶17] This Court will not reverse findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 

The findings here are supported by evidence, including testimony from the 

probation officer and A.D. The juvenile court also relied on G.R.D.’s 

predispositional report, which accounted for his behavioral history but had an 

out-of-date reference to a pending residential treatment application. Because 

the juvenile court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and 

because the out-of-date information was not material to the juvenile court’s 

disposition, the court did not clearly err in ordering G.R.D. be placed in the 

custody of the DJS.

III

[¶18] The juvenile court did not err in ordering G.R.D. be placed in the custody 

of the DJS. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

[¶19] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr