State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.T.E., mother, Respondent and Appellant (2026)

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

In the INTEREST OF A.S.H., a child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.S.H., child; A.S.H., father, Respondents A.T.E., mother, Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of A.T.E., a child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.T.E., child; A.S.H., father, Respondents A.T.E., mother, Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of A.L., a child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.L., child; A.L., father, Respondents A.T.E., mother, Respondent and Appellant
In the Interest of A.L., a child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.L., child; A.L., father, Respondents A.T.E., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20260171, No. 20260172, No. 20260173, No. 20260174

Decided: June 25, 2026

Rebecca L. Altman, Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, ND, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief. E. Jane Sundby, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.

[¶1] A.T.E. appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights to her children A.S.H., A.T.E., A.L., and A.L. A.T.E. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her motion to vacate an order finding her in default for failure to appear at three successive hearings.

[¶2] Rule 10(a)(3), N.D.R.Juv.P., provides the parent of a child “must be present at all hearings unless excused by the court,” and “[t]he court may proceed if it is in the best interests of the child to do so even if the parent ․ fails to appear.” Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10(b), if after being properly served, a parent “fails to appear at a hearing, the court may receive evidence in support of the petition or reschedule the hearing” and “[i]f the petition is proved by the applicable burden of proof, the court may enter an order granting the relief sought in the petition.” This Court reviews a juvenile court's determination to vacate a default order for an abuse of discretion. In re B.F., 2025 ND 127, ¶¶ 21-25, 23 N.W.3d 718.

[¶3] We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying A.T.E.’s motion to vacate the order finding her in default. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Per Curiam.

[¶4] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network