Case Name: INTEREST OF K.S.D., a child Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. K.S.D., child; H.L.K., mother; Christopher D. Jones, the Executive Director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services, Respondents and R.W.D., father, Respondent and Appellant Interest of J.S.D., a child Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee v. J.S.D., child; H.L.K., mother; Christopher D. Jones, the Executive Director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services, Respondents and R.W.D., father, Respondent and Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 2018-05-07
Citations: 910 N.W.2d 834
Docket Number: No. 20170272; No. 20170273
Parties: INTEREST OF K.S.D., a child
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 910
Pages: 834–835

Head Matter:
INTEREST OF K.S.D., a child
Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
K.S.D., child; H.L.K., mother; Christopher D. Jones, the Executive Director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services, Respondents
and
R.W.D., father, Respondent and Appellant
Interest of J.S.D., a child
Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State's Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
J.S.D., child; H.L.K., mother; Christopher D. Jones, the Executive Director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services, Respondents
and
R.W.D., father, Respondent and Appellant
No. 20170272
No. 20170273
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Filed May 7, 2018
Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State's Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.
Megan J.K. Essig, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
[¶ 1] R.W.D. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his two children. He argues insufficient evidence supports the termination of his parental rights. Retaining jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3), we remanded to the juvenile court for testimony of a qualified expert witness and findings about "the prevailing social and cultural standards of the Indian child's Tribe" under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) and 25 C.F.R. § 23.122(a). Interest of K.S.D. and J.S.D. , 2017 ND 289, ¶ 29, 904 N.W.2d 479. The juvenile court found the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt, through qualified expert testimony meeting the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act, that R.W.D.'s continued custody of the children likely would result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. See 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) and 25 C.F.R. § 23.122(a). We conclude that the juvenile court's findings are not clearly erroneous and that the juvenile court complied with N.D.R.Civ.P. 63. We affirm the order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J. Crothers
Jerod E. Tufte
Stacy J. Louser, D.J.
[¶ 3] The Honorable Stacy J. Louser, D.J., sitting in place of Jensen, J., disqualified.