AN ACT to create and enact a new chapter to title 27 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the re-establishment of parental rights and responsibilities.
HB 1034 creates a new chapter in Title 27 of the North Dakota Century Code establishing a legal process for the re-establishment of parental rights and responsibilities after those rights have previously been terminated. The bill allows an interested party from the original termination case to petition juvenile court to restore the legal parent-child relationship when the child remains in foster care, at least 12 months have passed since termination, the child has not been adopted, and the parent has demonstrated rehabilitation and the ability to provide safe day-to-day care. The court must first find a prima facie case, then hold an evidentiary hearing, and may grant relief only on clear and convincing evidence that reunification is in the child’s best interests and that all statutory conditions are met.
The bill also sets out detailed procedural protections and limits. It gives the child a right to counsel, requires appointment of a guardian ad litem, authorizes transition or trial home placement planning, and directs human service zones to monitor the parent during reunification efforts. It bars petitions in cases involving prior termination for sexual abuse or certain violent conduct causing serious bodily injury or death to a minor. If granted, the order restores the parent’s legal status and all associated rights and duties, terminates state custody, and awards permanent legal and physical custody to the genetic parent, while leaving the rights of any other parent and sibling relationships unaffected.
The bill’s impact is to create a new judicial pathway for restoring parental rights in North Dakota, adding a post-termination reunification mechanism where none is described in the bill text. It affects juvenile court practice, human service zones, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Division of Juvenile Services, children in foster care, and genetic parents whose rights were previously terminated. It also changes how courts handle custody, counsel, guardians ad litem, and permanency decisions in cases involving terminated parental rights.
Overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial in the recorded votes. The House passed the bill 91-0 and the Senate passed it 45-0, indicating unanimous bipartisan approval in both chambers. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to suggest organized opposition.
The main points of potential contention are built into the bill’s safeguards rather than reflected in the vote history. The law requires a high evidentiary standard, excludes cases involving sexual abuse or serious violent harm to a child, and allows the court to deny or bar later petitions if reunification is not in the child’s best interests. Those provisions suggest the legislature was balancing family reunification with child safety, permanency, and the interests of prospective adoptive placements.
HB 1034 adds a new chapter to Title 27 governing juvenile court proceedings for the re-establishment of parental rights and responsibilities after termination. It creates new statutory definitions, jurisdiction and venue rules, petition requirements, hearing standards, trial home placement procedures, and the legal effect of an order restoring the parent-child relationship. The bill directly affects North Dakota juvenile courts, human service zones, the Department of Health and Human Services, foster care cases, and parents seeking reunification after termination of rights.
The recorded legislative sentiment is overwhelmingly positive and unified. The bill passed the House 91-0 and the Senate 45-0, showing no recorded opposition in either chamber. With no committee transcript available, the available history suggests broad agreement that the bill provides a carefully limited reunification process while preserving child safety protections.
No formal opposition is reflected in the voting record, but the bill’s structure shows the likely areas of concern that were addressed: whether a parent whose rights were terminated should ever be allowed to regain them, how to protect children from unsafe reunification, and how to avoid disrupting adoption or permanency planning. The bill responds to those concerns by limiting eligibility, excluding serious abuse and violent-offense cases, requiring proof of rehabilitation and best interests, and allowing courts to deny or bar later petitions. These safeguards indicate the legislature’s focus on balancing reunification opportunities with child welfare and permanency interests.