Title: Ohlsen v. Lmd
Citation: 253 N.W.2d 870
Docket Number: 9271
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: May 12, 1977

253 N.W.2d 870 (1977) In the Interest of R. L. D., a child, Clarence O. OHLSEN, Director Grand Forks County Social Service Center, Petitioner-Appellee, v. L. M. D., also known as L. M. J., mother, Respondent-Appellant, T. H., Respondent. Civ. No. 9271. Supreme Court of North Dakota. May 12, 1977. *872 F. John Marshall, Grand Forks, c/o Office of Juvenile Commissioner, for appellee. O'Grady &amp; Anderson, Grand Forks; Harold W. E. Anderson, Guardian ad Litem for R. L. D. Kessler &amp; Anderson, Grand Forks, for appellant; argued by David Kessler. PAULSON, Judge. L.D., the natural mother of R.L.D., a nine-year old female child, appeals from an order of the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County dated August 5, 1976, which order terminated the parental rights of T.H., the father, and L.D., to the child, R.L.D. L.D., now 47 years old, gave birth to R.L.D. on November 26, 1966, out of wedlock. T.H., whom L.D. had lived with for two years prior to R.L.D.'s birth, left L.D. shortly after the child's birth, but made support payments of $50.00 per month until R.L.D. was about five years old. T.H. apparently has no active interest in the present action. L.D. currently resides in a home she purchased in 1970all mortgage payments were current at the time of the hearing. L.D. has an eighth grade formal education, and has worked primarily as a music teachergiving piano, accordion, and guitar lessonsbut she has also held various other part-time jobs since the birth of R.L.D. R.L.D. is currently under the temporary care, custody, and control of the director of the Grand Forks County Social Service Center, and resides in a licensed foster home in Grand Forks County, having been so placed by said custodian. R.L.D. came into the temporary custody of the director of the Grand Forks County Social Service Center by order of the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County dated September 23, 1974, which order followed a hearing held on September 18, 1974, in which it was alleged by the director of the Grand Forks County Social Service Center, and found by the Juvenile Court, that R.L.D. was a deprived child within the purview of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act, as amended, § 27-20-02(5)(a), N.D.C.C. *873 On August 14, 1975, L.D. submitted a motion requesting that R.L.D. be returned to L.D.'s custody. On August 22, 1975, the director of the Grand Forks County Social Service Center petitioned the Juvenile Court for an amended order of disposition and requested that L.D.'s and T.H.'s parental rights in R.L.D. be terminated. The hearings on both the motion and the petition were held on December 16, 1975. At that time both the motion and petition were withdrawn upon stipulation of the parties, and the order of September 23, 1974, which placed R.L.D. in the temporary custody of the Grand Forks County Social Service Center was continued with the understanding that the Grand Forks County Social Service Center would continue to work with L.D. in order that she might be rehabilitated. On May 20, 1976, the director of the Grand Forks County Social Service Center again filed a petition for termination of parental rights. The hearing on such petition was held on July 27, 28, 29, and 30, 1976. On August 5, 1976, the Juvenile Court filed the following findings of fact and order of disposition which terminated the parental rights of L.D. and T.H. to the child, R.L.D.: *874 Our scope of review of decisions made under the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (Ch. 27-20, N.D.C.C.) is broader than in other cases tried to the court and is much like our former procedure of trial de novo. § 27-20-56(1), N.D.C.C.; Rule 81(c), N.D.R. Civ.P.; In re A.N., 201 N.W.2d 118, 121 (N.D.1972). We therefore reexamine The public purposes basic to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act pertinent to the issues raised in the instant case are set forth in subsections 1 and 3 of § 27-20-01, N.D.C.C., wherein it provides: Section 27-20-44, N.D.C.C., provides: "Termination of parental rights. Section 27-20-02(5)(a), N.D.C.C., defines "deprived child" to mean: In the case of In re H, 206 N.W.2d 871, 873 (N.D.1973), this court stated: The burden is on the State, as the party challenging the right of the natural parents to the care, custody, and control of their child, to prove by clear and convincing evidence the existence of all three of the above-stated factors. In Interest of R.W.B., 241 N.W.2d 546, 550 (N.D.1976), and cases cited therein. Our review being de novo, it is incumbent upon us to review the evidence in the instant case. While the record is voluminous, we have carefully reviewed it, and conclude that the basic facts can be summarized as follows: *875 That R.L.D. was born on November 26, 1966, out of wedlock. Her parents are L.D. and T.H. T.H. has no active interest in this case. L.D. is a resident of Grand Forks. Except for short periods of L.D.'s hospitalization for mental illness, R.L.D. was cared for exclusively by her mother from the child's birth until September 23, 1974, when, by order of the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County, R.L.D. was placed under the temporary care, custody and control of the director of the Grand Forks County Social Service Center, and she has since resided in a licensed foster home in Grand Forks County. That L.D. has had a history of recurring mental illness, diagnosed as schizophrenic, dating from the fall of 1971, for which hospitalization and outpatient services have been necessary. That L.D. was referred to the Northeast Regional Mental Health and Retardation Center by the Social Security Administration for an evaluation and was found eligible for social security disability benefits which L.D. received until R.L.D. was removed from her custody on September 23, 1974. That after finding that R.L.D. was a "deprived child" as defined by § 27-20-02(5)(a), N.D.C.C., the juvenile court ordered the removal of R.L.D. from the custody of L.D. on August 16, 1974, and placed R.L.D. in the temporary care, custody, and control of the Grand Forks County Social Service Center. That R.L.D., when first placed in a foster home, exhibited signs of nervousness and improper care, including: scratching herself until she bled; refusal to enter empty rooms alone; unusual fear of guns and knives; and poor eating habitsbut that after a few months in a foster home, she overcame these nervous traits and became better adjusted. That L.D. has been the recipient of extensive, if not all of the social services available in the Grand Forks area, including: adult foster home services; psychological services; homemaker services; group therapy; and continuous caseworker servicesbut that the utilization of such services, although effectively provided, have been unsuccessful in controlling L.D.'s emotional and mental problems. That L.D., during periods in which she has not been confined, has demonstrated behavior which would seriously affect R.L. D.'s mental and emotional health, namely, attempted suicides, including one occasion in which L.D. shot herself while R.L.D. was in the house; making provisions to buy a casket for herself; and threatening R.L.D.'s life if R.L.D. were not returned to her custody. That L.D. does not trust or believe the social workers, psychologists, doctors, or other medical personnel that have come in contact with her, i. e., she alleges that the social workers lied about the type and extent of services rendered to her; she alleges that the hospital nurses poured vinegar on her food during one stay in the hospital and that they forced her to take the wrong pills; she refuses to take any medication when she is released from supervision; she alleges that the only reason she was placed in an adult foster home was so that "they" could force her to take pills; she alleges that none of the doctors and psychiatrists that have treated her really understand her; and she alleges that the only thing that the welfare department is trying to do is to take R.L.D. away from her. The first question which we must answer in this appeal is whether or not R.L.D. is a "deprived child", as defined in § 27-20-02(5), N.D.C.C. (quoted earlier herein). From our review of the files, records, and transcripts of the evidence before the juvenile court, we find that R.L.D. is a "deprived child" and that such deprivation is not primarily caused by the lack of financial means of her parents. The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that R.L.D. was subjected to severe mental and emotional abuse from 1971 until she was removed from L.D.'s custody on August 16, 1974because R.L.D., prior to being removed from her mother's custody, was being raised in an environment which encompassed her mother's attempts at suicide, *876 talk of death, mistrust of social service help and psychiatric help, and other less serious manifestations of her mother's mental illness. The record clearly shows that, even with the full utilization of the social services made available to her in the Grand Forks area, L.D. was unable to provide R.L.D. with proper parental care necessary for R.L.D.'s mental and emotional health. Secondly, we must determine whether or not the conditions and causes of R.L. D.'s deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied. The record clearly establishes that L.D.'s mental illness is of a recurring nature, and that even while in remission, as at the time of the trial, such mental illness affects her attitudes and beliefs to a degree that would harmfully affect the mental and emotional development of a minor child. Further, we note that L.D. has been unable to maintain her mental illness in remission during the past two years, a period during which L.D. has been freed of the responsibility of caring for R.L.D., and has had available extensive social services and competent psychiatric help. We also note that L.D. does not trust the medical personnel that have treated her; that she feels that none of them understand her; that she feels that nurses give her improper medication; and she refuses to continue to take any medication once released from custody because she feels that medication is harmful to her body. Because L.D.'s mental illness is of a recurring nature and is not held in remission even during periods during which L.D. has had no responsibility for caring for R.L.D., and because L.D. openly mistrusts and resists medical help in the treatment of her mental illness, we find that the conditions and causes of R.L.D.'s deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied. Thirdly, we are asked whether R.L.D. will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm by reason of L.D.'s recurring mental illness. Our conclusion, drawn from the record before us, is that R.L.D. will probably suffer serious mental and emotional harm if returned to her mother's custody. Although we find L.D. to be a loving and caring mother, we find that the State has established by clear and convincing evidence that she is now and probably will continue to be unable to provide a suitable mental and emotional environment for the growth and development of a minor child. In addition to the foregoing substantive issues presented for our review in the instant case, L.D. has also raised three procedural questions for our review. First, L.D. contends that the juvenile court was without jurisdiction to terminate L.D.'s parental rights because the petition for termination of parental rights, dated May 20, 1976, contained no allegation that the causes of R.L. D.'s deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied. We disagree. Section 27-20-45(1), N.D.C.C., sets forth the required content of a petition for termination of parental rights, as follows: Section 27-20-21, N.D.C.C., provides: Section 27-20-46, N.D.C.C., in pertinent part, provides: There is no requirement that the petition for termination of parental rights allege that the conditions and causes of any deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied. Although there must be a finding that the conditions and causes of any deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied before parental rights may be terminated, such is not a jurisdictional requisite that must be alleged in the petition for termination of parental rights. In the instant case, the petition for termination of parental rights fully conformed with the requirements set forth in § 27-20-45, N.D. C.C., and, therefore, the juvenile court had full jurisdiction to order the termination of L.D.'s parental rights. L.D. next argues that the juvenile court permitted prejudicial error in refusing the motion and request by counsel for L.D. to have R.L.D., who was nine years of age at the time of the termination hearing, to either testify at the hearing or be interviewed by the juvenile court judge in chambers. Such argument is premised upon § 27-20-24(4), N.D.C.C., which provides: We disagree. The primary purpose of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act is to protect the welfare of the child. The decision of whether or not to subject a child of tender years to such potential stress as would result from such child giving testimony, either in the judge's chambers or in open court, at a hearing for the termination of the parental rights of such child's parents must rest with the discretion of the juvenile court. In the instant case, the juvenile court determined that the value of R.L.D.'s testimony would be outweighed by the distress such testimony would create for R.L.D. From our review of the record, and given the nature of the causes for R.L.D.'s deprivation, we find that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow R.L.D. to testify in the instant case. Finally, L.D. contends that the juvenile court erred in allowing Dr. Leland H. Lipp, a psychologist at the University Medical Center Rehabilitation Hospital in Grand Forks, to testify contrary to his views expressed in the written report he had made one year prior to the hearing in the instant case, dated May 8, 1975. L.D. contends that any observations or evaluations made by Dr. Lipp which were inconsistent with his written evaluation of May 8, 1975, should not have been admitted into evidence. Such argument is based on an alleged failure on the part of the State to supplement responses to interrogatories pursuant to Rule 26(e), N.D.R.Civ.P. We disagree. Counsel's argument is premised on a duty to update interrogatories which were drawn and served by a prior counsel for L.D., prior to the stipulated withdrawal of a separate and distinct action for the termination of L.D.'s parental rights. Such prior action was dismissed by stipulation of the parties on December 16, 1975. The *878 instant case was initiated by a petition for termination of parental rights dated May 20, 1976, and is a separate and distinct action from the former petition. Present counsel for L.D. made no effort to renew prior counsel's interrogatories served during the previous action, nor did present counsel for L.D. serve similar interrogatories of his own drafting. We find no duty requiring the supplementation of interrogatories served as part of the discovery process of a separate and distinct action that has been dismissed. Further, § 27-20-29(4), N.D. C.C., provides, in pertinent part: . . ." Such provision clearly shows that our Legislature intended that the juvenile court should consider all relevant evidence bearing upon the issues relating to the proper disposition of a case once the court has determined that a child is a "deprived" child. Interest of R.W.B., 241 N.W.2d 546, 553 (N.D.1976). Furthermore, it is not disputed that Dr. Lipp was noted as a witness for the State in the instant case, and the record shows that Dr. Lipp's examination of L.D. prior to his report of May 8, 1975, was limited to only eight to ten hours, but that he had spent from thirty to forty hours examining her subsequent to his written report of May 8, 1975. We therefore find such testimony to have been properly noticed, and to be competent testimony in a hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights. The order of the juvenile court terminating the parental rights of L.D. and T.H. is affirmed. Costs shall not be assessed to either party. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PEDERSON, VOGEL and SAND, JJ., concur. [1] As this Court noted in McGurren v. S.T., 241 N.W.2d 690, 693 (N.D.1976), the fitness of a parent is a fourth factor to be considered at a hearing terminating parental rights. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S. Ct. 1208, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1972); Kottsick v. Carlson, 241 N.W.2d 842 (N.D.1976).