Opinion ID: 2118033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: dismissal of adoption proceedings

Text: Dismissal of the adoption proceedings was ordered without taking any testimony of the parties. However, during the proceedings, the trial court, through its questioning of counsel for the petitioners, determined that they did not intend to claim or submit evidence to prove that the natural father had deserted or abandoned the children, nor that his payments required under the divorce decree were not current, nor that he was depraved or had been convicted of any serious crime. Counsel for the petitioners indicated that he would present some evidence of the effect of the exercise of the visitation rights upon the children, but I do not intend to prove these matters, because my position is that it isn't necessary. Thus, the record reveals that only evidence concerning the effect of the exercise of the visitation rights on the children would be presented. To change or curtail rights of visitation as given under a divorce decree is one thing, but to terminate permanently all parental rights, as is the result of the issuance of an adoption decree, is quite another. As previously pointed out, the court in which the divorce decree was issued has continuing jurisdiction over questions of custody and also visitation rights. If the appellants feel the visitation rights should be changed or modified in the best interests of the children, they have the right to seek the modification of the visitation rights in the jurisdiction wherein the divorce decree was issued. In Eggert v. Van de Weghe, supra , the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the parties seeking the adoption have the burden of proving the noncustodial parent unfit to retain his parental rights or to have or to seek future custody of the child in the event that a change of circumstances requires or justifies such a change. The Minnesota Supreme Court then reiterated its holding in Wilson v. Barnet, 275 Minn. 32, 144 N.W.2d 700 (1966), stating: The question of whether a parent who does not have custody is unfit and his parental rights subject to termination by conduct condemned under the statute ought to be separately determined prior to a consideration of whether the adoption would serve the best interests of the child. Such a procedure, if followed in this case, would likely have avoided the error evident here of the parties' failing to submit evidence on the critical issue of unfitness and would have enabled the court to make specific findings on that issue.    Eggert v. Van de Weghe, supra, 279 Minn. 31, 155 N.W.2d 454, 458. N.D.C.C. Sec. 27-20-03, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act, provides the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings for the termination of parental rights except when a part of an adoption proceeding. [N.D.C.C. Sec. 27-20-03(1) (b)] As previously pointed out in this opinion, one of the paramount issues to be determined in an adoption proceeding under facts and circumstances as shown by the record in this case is the issue of the unfitness of the noncustodial parent, and the  petitioners in an adoption proceeding have the burden of proving such unfitness. The petitioners did not indicate they would submit any evidence on the issue of the unfitness of the noncustodial parent, Harley Hettick. Thus, it is our decision that under the state of the record, the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition for adoption without prejudice to the bringing of a new petition should there be a change of conditions which would authorize the granting of a decree of adoption. The order of the court dismissing the petition for adoption is therefore affirmed. STRUTZ, C. J., and ERICKSTAD, PAULSON and TEIGEN, JJ., concur. The Honorable HARVEY B. KNUDSON deeming himself disqualified did not participate; the Honorable W. C. LYNCH, Judge of the Fourth Judicial District sitting in his stead.