In re M.B. and N.B.
North Dakota Supreme Court
709 N.W.2d 11 (2006)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
I.B. and K.S. (defendants) had two children, M.B. and N.B. The children witnessed domestic violence between their parents, and according to K.S., they were abused by I.B. In 2002, a juvenile court declared the children deprived, removed them from the family home, and placed them in foster care. After mandatory family counseling, the children were reunified with their parents. When I.B. and K.S. separated, K.S. was awarded custody. However, twice that year, the children were again declared deprived and placed in social services’ care. State social worker Marlene Sorum (plaintiff) petitioned for the termination of K.S.’s and I.B.’s parental rights. K.S. consented, but I.B. objected, arguing that he wanted to care for the children. At trial, the children’s therapist testified that I.B. exposed the children to pornography and horror movies and engaged in sexual activities in their presence. She also testified that the children complained of a lack of food at I.B.’s home, seemed to be suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder in addition to already diagnosed behavioral disorders, and acted out in their parents’ presence. Based on the evidence, the trial court terminated I.B.’s parental rights. I.B. appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the termination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sandstrom, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

