Judge Debbie Kleven
Justice Mary Muehlen Maring
Judge Gary Lee
Judge Bruce Romanick
Mike Hagburg to assist Board in development of Rules.
Committee Member Changes:
Reid Brady, Cass County Attorney, replaces Gary Delorme
Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger, resigned
Michelle Kommer, UND School of Law student
1st Agenda Item - GAL 2nd Agenda Item - Role of Juvenile Court Officer
Mr. Hentzen will have a discussion with DHS Regional Supervisor.
Karen Kringle brought copy of policy 112. She explained that the proposed legislation changes the term "juvenile supervisor" to "juvenile director" Juvenile Court officers asked for clarification as to whether juvenile court officers were still protected under the statute 54-12-01.3. Mr. Sorenson said if they are acting in the scope of their employment, they would be protected. Ms. Kringlie asked if the language of policy 112 should be changed since the term "officer" is not used in the statute anymore. The group agreed the change should be made to policy 112 (changing "supervisor" to "director of juvenile court" to be consistent):
•Purpose (I) change "juvenile supervisor" to "director of juvenile court"
•Statement of Policy (III): "A person who is classified as a juvenile court officer II or a juvenile court officer II s a director of juvenile court for purposes of Section 54-12-01.3, NDCC."
2nd Agenda Item - Role of Juvenile Court Officer
3rd Agenda Item - Legislative Update
Mr. Ganje explained that the legislation passed house, and went to Senate. During Senate hearing, the "active efforts" provision as recommended by the Board was removed and replaced with minimal language about foster care placement and TPR requiring "active efforts", and a request for a legislative council study was attached. He noted that the House did not agree with the Senate amendments, so the changes went to conference committee. Mr. Ganje distributed copies of the resulting amendments. The final vote is expected soon.
4th Agenda Item - Rules Discussion
The group made note of several areas where Rules would be helpful. The group noted that it would be helpful to compare the statute, ND rules of criminal procedure, ND rules of civil procedure, and perhaps another state's rules for comparison purposes.
a. Who pays witness fees (should be the AG's office, even for deprivation proceedings)?
b. Who will issue subpoena?
c. Who are the PARTIES (in protection, delinquency)?
d. Motion to intervene? Is there a difference in deprivation or termination proceedings or would you handle this the same?
e. Process for appointment of legal counsel - who gets the lawyer? Court? Parent? Court orders parent to apply?
f. Rule 4.2 of the ND Rules of Court seems more appropriately placed in Juvenile Court Rules.
g. Lay guardians ad litem
(i) Similar to Rule 8.7
(ii) Appointments, definitions, responsibilities
h. Publication of notice
(i) Study resolution requested to determine who will be responsible for publication - Juvenile Court or the States Attorney
(ii) Can look at current rules of civil procedure for guidance
i. Notification to tribes - ICWA 25-29-12 requires "by registered mail with return receipt requested"
j. The presence of the child (allowed/mandatory?)
(i) Some states (MN) say children have the right, some have an age limit, some apply the best interest standard
(ii) What right, especially in deprivation matters, do children have to speak?
(1) Children are represented by lay GAL, judges handle this differently, and there isn't any guidance
k. Making a default finding - What are the standards for default judgment? What if the parent has disappeared?
l. Party hearing by telephone:
m. Discovery - does it apply?
Jim Ganje will draft the change to Policy 112 and forward to Judge Kleven for submission to the Court.
Mike Hagburg: Complete initial draft of rules based on foregoing suggestions.
Meeting adjourned at 12:00pm.
To accommodate those that are already attending the Juvenile Court Conference, the next meeting
of the Juvenile Policy Board is September 21, 2007 at 9:00a.m. in Grand Forks, North Dakota.