Juvenile Policy Board September 10, 2004 Minutes

Juvenile Policy Board

MINUTESJUVENILE POLICY BOARD

Bismarck, ND

September 10, 2004

Members Present Judge Debbie Kleven, Chair Justice Mary Maring Judge David Nelson Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger Bob Freed Connie Cleveland Al Lick Paul Murphy *Clarence Daniel	Members Absent Karen Kringlie Judge Bruce Romanick Steve Balaban Paul Ronningen
Staff Louie Hentzen Jim Ganje	*Expanded membership for purposes of discussing the Uniform Juvenile Court Act.

The minutes of the July 23, 2004, meeting were approved.

The initial topic of discussion centered around the need for juvenile court rules. Connie Cleveland listed a number of issues in support for the juvenile court rules:

•No consistent rules of evidence for juvenile cases.

•Need guidance for those who do not usually practice in juvenile court.

•Who are respondents?

•How is discovery handled?

•No rules relating to "failure to appear".

•Rules related to ICWA cases.

•Different rules for delinquent/unruly and deprivation cases.

Jim Ganje has looked at six or seven states that have rules for juvenile courts. He indicated there was a lot of information to look at, a variety of rules in each state, and the rules should be "implementation" related. Bob Freed indicated a need for rules and used discovery as an example. Judge Nelson inquired as to whether the Joint Procedure Committee should be involved.

Justice Maring made reference to the Chief Justice's letter referring to rules. She believes the Chief Justice is asking the Board to consider rules and then send them to the Supreme Court. She stated that this Board is critical in policy development.

The issue of consistency was discussed. Al Lick indicated he had no issues with different types of instruments used for evaluation, but was concerned about different computer tracking systems used by the court and the Division of Juvenile Services.

The question of a need for a subcommittee to develop rules was discussed. Jim Ganje indicated a need for a starting point. He inquired as to what is the objective of the project. Is it to remedy any deficiencies in the Act or to revamp the Act? After much discussion, it was determined that, rather than have a subcommittee or multiple subcommittees, the whole group should discuss each section of the Act and make notations as to whether specific rules should be recommended.

The next topic of discussion was to address any immediate areas of concern. Bob Freed suggested the state's attorney's responsibility and the conflicts of executive and judicial branch functions. Clarence Daniel indicated that social services is confused in delivery of service from state's attorneys and juvenile officers. Jim Ganje indicated he will work on former legislative proposals.

The meeting then adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for November 23, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. in connection with the Judicial Conference.