Interest of R.O.

20000305 Interest of R.O., V.O. and J.H.
--------------
Keith Berger, Director
Grand Forks County Social
Services, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
F.O., Respondent
-------------
L.H., Respondent and Appellant
Appeal from: Juvenile Court, Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County
Judge Joel D. Medd
Nature of Action: Termination/Parental Rights
Counsel:
Appellant: Larivee & Light
Respondent: Olson Law Office
Appellee: Dale Richard Rivard , Spec. Asst. State's Atty.
Guard. ad litem: Spaeth Thelen & Richards
Term: 06/2001   Argument: 06/11/2001  01:30pm
ND cite: 2001 ND 137
NW cite: 631 N.W.2d 159

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
(1) Whether the trial court erroneously held that north dakota rule of evidence 503 did not prohibit the disclosure and introduction into evidence of confidential communications made by appellant to her treating psychologist at the northeast human service center.
(2) Whether 42 c.f.r.  2.12 prohibits the disclousre of confidential communications between the appellant and her treating psychologists.
(3) Whether the appellant's constitutional right to privacy was violated by the admission of privileged information.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the District Court was correct when it terminated the parental rights of F.O. and L.H. to their minor children.br> A. Were the children deprived children?
B. Is the deprivation likely to continue?
C. Will there be harm to the children?
II. Have the children been in foster care under the care, custody, and control of the county social service board for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights?
III. Is the North Dakota Rule of Evidence 503 abrogated by N.D. Cent. Code  50-25.1-10 when the petition for termination alleges child abuse or neglect?
IV. Were the drug and alcohol records of F.O. and the testimony of Kim Miller properly admitted in light of 42 C.F.R.  2.64?
V. Does the application of N.D. Cent. Code  50.25.1-10 violate F.O. and L.H.'s constitutional right to privacy?
A. The relationship is not constitutionally protected.
B. There has not been an infringement of a protected area.
C. State interest exists which is sufficient to justify the intrusion.
D. The intrusion was narrowly circumscribed.

Add Docket 20000305 RSS Add Docket 20000305 RSS
Docket entries:
111/07/2000 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 11/06/2000
211/07/2000 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 11/06/2000
311/07/2000 THIS CASE IS CONFIDENTIAL
411/08/2000 THIS CASE IS CONSOLIDATED W/ 20000307-MAKE ALL ENTRIES EXCEPT "DIS" IN THIS CASE.
511/22/2000 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL (Diane Manthei): 12/26/2000
611/20/2000 Letter from Steven Light that he is court-appointed with copy of order; therefore, no filing fee.
711/20/2000 Amended Request for Transcript signed by Robin L. Olson, dtd.11-16-00
811/28/2000 Amended Request for Transcript signed by Steven M. Light, dtd. 11-22-00
912/20/2000 MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT
1012/20/2000 ACTION BY TRIAL COURT. Granted: 02/05/2001
1102/05/2001 TRANSCRIPTS DATED 3-27-00 (Vol. I); 3-28-00 (Vol. II); 3-29-00 (Vol. III); 3-29-00 (Vol. IV);
1202/05/2001 3-29-00 (Vol. V); 3-31-00 (Vol. VI); 7-25-00 (Vol. VII); 7-26-00 (Vol. VIII)
1302/06/2001 DISKS (5) - above transcripts
1403/14/2001 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (F.O., father)
1503/14/2001 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT/applies to all appellants' briefs). Granted: 04/16/2001
1603/15/2001 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (L.H., mother) (fax copy)
1703/15/2001 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 04/16/2001
1803/19/2001 Motion to Extend Appellant Brief Deadline (Same as faxed copy filed 3-15-01)
1903/19/2001 Letter from DeWayne Johnston of 3-16-01 RE:He will be writing brief & presenting case at oral arg
2004/16/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF of L.H.
2104/16/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX of L.H.
2204/16/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF of Appellant F.O. (Entered as STA code in 20000307 (DeWayne Johnston, counsel)
2304/16/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX of Appellant F.O. (DeWayne Johnston, counsel)
2404/18/2001 DISK of ATB for L.H.
2504/18/2001 DISK - ATB (F.O.)
2605/15/2001 APPELLEE BRIEF
2705/15/2001 APPELLEE APPENDIX
2805/16/2001 DISK - AEB
2905/21/2001 Clerk's Certificate of Record dated 5-18-01 (Entry Nos. 166 & 167)
3005/29/2001 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant F.O.
3105/31/2001 DISK - RYB of Appellant F.O.
3206/11/2001 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE (faxed letter dated 6-11-01 from Steven M. Light, counsel for AT L.H.)
3306/11/2001 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (re Mot. for Continuance). Denied
3402/07/2001 RECORD ON APPEAL (2 Vols.) and Exhibits
3506/11/2001 APPEARANCES: DeWayne Johnston for F.O.; submitted on brief by L.H.; Dale R. Rivard
3606/11/2001 ARGUED: Johnston; submitted on brief for L.H.; Rivard (Vol. X; page 142)
3706/11/2001 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
3807/20/2001 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
3907/20/2001 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
4007/20/2001 Costs on appeal awarded in favor of Appellee.
4107/23/2001 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
4208/14/2001 MANDATE
4308/27/2001 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
4407/10/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 05/20/2013