Background
A.T.E. is the mother of four children — A.S.H., A.T.E., A.L., and A.L. — whose cases were consolidated before the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District. The State of North Dakota petitioned to terminate A.T.E.’s parental rights to all four children. Despite being properly served, A.T.E. failed to appear at three successive hearings, leading the juvenile court to enter a default order against her and ultimately terminate her parental rights.
A.T.E. moved to vacate the default order. The juvenile court denied the motion, and A.T.E. appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing the juvenile court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the default finding.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of A.T.E.’s motion to vacate the default order. The court noted that under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10(a)(3), a parent must be present at all hearings unless excused by the court, and the court may proceed in the child’s best interests even if a parent fails to appear. Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10(b), if a properly served parent fails to appear, the court may receive evidence and enter an order granting the relief sought in the petition.
Applying an abuse-of-discretion standard of review consistent with In re B.F., 2025 ND 127, 23 N.W.3d 718, the court concluded the juvenile court acted within its discretion in denying the motion. The decision was issued per curiam and summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Key Takeaways
- A parent who has been properly served and fails to appear at juvenile court hearings may be defaulted, and the court may proceed to grant the relief sought in the termination petition.
- A juvenile court’s denial of a motion to vacate a default order is reviewed for abuse of discretion — a high bar the appellant did not meet here.
- North Dakota’s juvenile procedure rules (N.D.R.Juv.P. 10(a)(3) and 10(b)) explicitly authorize courts to proceed without a parent when the child’s best interests warrant it.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that parents in termination proceedings bear a firm obligation to appear at hearings, and that repeated non-appearance — even without an adjudication on the merits — can lead to an irrevocable loss of parental rights. Courts retain broad discretion to deny relief from default where a parent has been properly notified and still fails to participate.
For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of advising clients in juvenile matters that absence from court carries severe consequences, and that vacating a default order is not a matter of right but rests entirely in the court’s discretion guided by the children’s best interests.