Asendorf v. M.S.S., 10423

• Decision Date: 05 December 1983
• Docket Number: No. 10423,10423
• Citation: 342 N.W.2d 203
• Parties: Cal ASENDORF, Petitioner and Appellee, v. M.S.S., Respondent and Appellant. Civ.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 203

342 N.W.2d 203

Cal ASENDORF, Petitioner and Appellee, v. M.S.S., Respondent and Appellant.

Civ. No. 10423.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Dec. 5, 1983.

Richard C. Wilkes, Asst. State's Atty., Minot, for petitioner and appellee.

Clifford C. Grosz, Harvey, for respondent and appellant.

SAND, Justice.

The natural mother, M.S.S. (Marsha), appealed from a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights in her three minor children, L.S. (Lee) aged 6, R.S. (Robert) aged 4, and M.S. (Mark) aged 2. Marsha was not married at the time of conception of any of the children and their paternity has not been established. In 1981 Marsha married Roy and they are presently living together. (All names are pseudonyms.)

The Ward County social services office first visited Marsha's home in September 1978 after child abuse and neglect reports were filed against her. Between 1978 and October 1982 social service investigators visited Marsha's home on numerous occasions to inspect the home and to assist Marsha in utilizing available services. Although social services investigators occasionally described Marsha's home as fairly clean, they more frequently described it as very dirty. Investigators reported that they often found animal feces on the floor, human feces on the legs of the children and household furnishings, soiled diapers left laying about, and a general odor of urine throughout the home.

To help Marsha improve her child rearing skills, social service officials assisted Marsha in utilizing the following welfare services: Aid for Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, housing and medical assistance, the Women and Infant Children program, babysitter assistance, homemakers services, nutrition classes, home visits by nurses from the Ward County first district health unit, the Infant Stimulation program, and Headstart. Also, Robert was placed in foster care from 11 January 1980 to 11 February 1980. Robert and Lee were placed in foster care from 11 April 1980 to 30 September 1980, and all three children were placed in foster care on 19 November 1982, where they have remained since.

Despite periodic improvements, investigators reported in September 1982 that conditions in Marsha's home remained basically unchanged.

On 15 November 1982 Ward County juvenile supervisor Cal Asendorf filed a petition for termination of Marsha's parental rights. On 17 November Asendorf also filed a petition for appointment of a guardian ad litem for all three children. The juvenile court appointed a guardian ad litem that same day. The court subsequently held hearings on the petition for termination of Marsha's parental rights on 9, 16, and 28 December 1982.

At the termination hearings, the State introduced the written social service reports depicting the lack of cleanliness in Marsha's home. The State also introduced evidence indicating that the children's mental and physical development was deficient. Richard Dormont, a Minot pediatrician, had cared for all three children from birth. Dormont testified that the children suffered from a "failure to thrive syndrome." Failure to thrive, Dormont explained, is a form of child abuse which exists when a child with no known organic disease fails to reach normal stages of physical growth. Dormont stated that in eighty to eighty-five percent of such cases the problem is attributed to socioeconomic causes. Dormont testified that he was ninety-nine percent sure that the children's slow physical development was the result of poor socioeconomic conditions.

At the request of Marsha, a second pediatrician examined the children concerning Dormont's diagnosis of the children as failure to thrive. Minot Dr. Michael Holland examined the children on 20 December 1982. Holland stated in a letter submitted to the court that he agreed that "all three children probably [had] nonorganic failure to thrive." Holland had studied the growth charts of Robert and Mark (no recent growth charts were available on Lee) and compared them to his findings. Holland stated that his diagnosis of failure to thrive was strongly supported by Robert's and Mark's increase in weight and height during the three months prior to his examination, a period that coincided with one month of the children's latest foster care. Holland stated that Lee and Robert's failure to thrive produced abnormally small head sizes and a potential for developmental delay. Holland recommended that Mark receive aggressive therapy to prevent similar results.

Keith Gustafson, assistant professor of special education at Minot State College, testified that he was the director of the infant stimulation program in Ward County when Robert was enrolled in the program from February 1980 through August 1981. The program, Gustafson explained, was designed for intervention services to handicapped children ages one to three. Gustafson testified that standardized evaluations of Robert showed that his language development skills were low and that his cognitive developmental skills were in the "significantly delayed range." When Robert was discharged from the program his cognitive developmental skills had increased by approximately thirty points on the standardized tests to what Gustafson termed a "low average range." However, Gustafson testified that Robert's language skills were still low. According to Gustafson, Marsha later missed several appointments with his office designed to improve Robert's language skills. He also testified that Marsha did not follow through with in-home language development techniques. Finally, Gustafson stated that, from an education standpoint, his test results were consistent with the pediatricians' diagnosis of Robert as failure to thrive.

On 16 February 1983 the juvenile court entered a judgment terminating Marsha's parental rights. On appeal Marsha raised the following two issues: (1) Whether or not the trial court erred in appointing a nonattorney as a guardian ad litem for the children; and (2) Whether or not the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights.

With respect to the first issue, we note initially that the terms "guardian" and "guardian ad litem" have distinct meanings. A guardian is a person who has, or is entitled to, the care and management of the person or property of another, or both. The person for whom a guardian is appointed is normally a minor or an incompetent. State v. Johnson, 88 N.W.2d 209, 216 (N.D.1958). A guardian ad litem, on the other hand, is a special guardian appointed by the court to prosecute or defend in behalf of an infant or incompetent in a suit to which he is a party. Black's Law Dictionary 635 (5th Ed.1979). Despite their distinct meanings, the two words are often used interchangeably, albeit incorrectly.

In the instant case, the State's petition was entitled "Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem." The text of the petition stated that the "children have no general guardian and are not otherwise legally represented for the purpose of this proceeding." The court appointed a nonattorney to act as the children's "guardian ad litem for the purpose of representing said children in handling all matters ... involving the interests of said children ...." Marsha contended that the trial court erred in appointing a nonattorney as guardian ad litem.

The children are not parties to the instant case. They were not required to present evidence or file pleadings. The children are, rather, merely objects of the suit. Generally, if the child has a guardian or a parent, the court is not required to appoint a guardian ad litem because the parent or general guardian, as the case may be, is in a position to employ the services of an attorney if the need arises. Bartholomay v. St. Thomas Lumber Co., 148 N.W.2d 278, 287-288 (N.D.1966). However, in this case the petitioners contended that the children are deprived and the deprivation will continue. This, in effect, meant that the parent was not and is not performing the required parental duties and obligations for the benefit of the children, and, as a result, the children are deprived. This raises the difficult question whether or not the children, in reality, have a parent. The court could have appointed a guardian for this purpose. Rule 17(b), NDRCivP. The function of the guardian ad litem in this case, therefore, was more like that of a guardian. As we recognized above, however, the two words are frequently used interchangeably in legal proceedings. We conclude that the trial court did not err in appointing a nonattorney as guardian ad litem.

Marsha's second contention was that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights. The applicable statute addressing termination of parental rights is located in North Dakota's Uniform Juvenile Court Act, NDCC Ch. 27-20. NDCC Sec. 27-20-44 provides in pertinent part:

"1. The court by order may terminate the parental rights of a parent with respect to his child if:

* * *

b. The child is a deprived child and the court finds that the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied and that by reason thereof the child is suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm."

Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights under Sec. 27-20-44(1)(b), the State must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the child is a deprived child; (2) the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied; and (3) by reason of the continuous or irremediable conditions and causes, the child is suffering or will probably suffer...