In the Interest of L.T., a child

20100329 In the Interest of L.T., a child
-------------
Jacob Rodenbiker, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
L.T., Child; H.T., Mother, Respondents
and
B.T., Father, Respondent and Appellant

Appeal from: Juvenile Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Bruce A. Romanick
Nature of Action: Juvenile Law (Criminal)
Counsel:
Appellant: Bradley D. Peterson
Appellant: Meredith Leigh Vukelic
Appellee: Jacob T. Rodenbiker , Asst. State's Attorney
Amicus curiae: Ken R. Sorenson , Att. General Office
Term: 02/2011   Argument: 02/23/2011  10:30am
ND cite: 2011 ND 120
NW cite: 798 N.W.2d 657

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the 2007 amendment to N.D.C.C.  27-20-26(1) is unconstitutional because it creates a two-class system which grants non-indigent parents the right to hire an attorney at their child's adjudicatory proceeding while leaving similarly situated indigent parents with no choice but to act pro se, thereby denying indigent parents their Constitutional right to equal protection of law.
II. Whether the Juvenile Court erred when it failed to advise an unrepresented parent at the adjudication stage of the mandatory sexual offender registration requirement which would automatically apply when his child admitted to a delinquent act.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether an indigent respondent-parent has the right to appointment of counsel in the adjudicatory stage of a juvenile delinquency proceeding.
2. Whether NDCC  27-20-26(1) denies equal protection of law because it does not afford an indigent respondent-parent the right to appointment of counsel in the adjudicatory stage of a juvenile delinquency proceeding.
3. Whether the court erred when it did not advise a respondent-parent in a juvenile delinquency proceeding that the respondent-child's adjudication for a felony sexual offense bears the consequence of sexual offender registration.

Add Docket 20100329 RSS Add Docket 20100329 RSS

Docket entries:
110/05/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 10/01/2010
210/05/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 10/01/2010
310/05/2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT & RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 11/20/2010
410/22/2010 TRANSCRIPTS DATED 2/23/10; 3/16/10; & 6/15/10 & C.O.S.
510/22/2010 DISK - TRA (2/23/10; 3/16/10; & 6/15/10) (e-mailed)
610/26/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL & Separate #71
712/01/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF
812/01/2010 APPELLANT APPENDIX
912/01/2010 DISK - ATB (floppy disk)
1012/28/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF (faxed)
1112/28/2010 E-FILED MOTION (MAE)
1212/28/2010 ACTION BY CLERK (MAE) w/understanding oral agrument in February.. Granted: 01/18/2011
1312/29/2010 MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF
1412/29/2010 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted
1512/29/2010 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
1612/29/2010 DISK (ACB)
1701/14/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF
1801/14/2011 DISK - aeb (e-mailed)
1901/19/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
2001/27/2011 REPLY BRIEF
2101/27/2011 DISK - RYB (floppy disk)
2202/23/2011 APPEARANCES: Bradley D. Peterson; Meredith Vukelic; Jacob Rodenbiker
2302/23/2011 ARGUED: Bradley D. Peterson; Jacob Rodenbiker
2402/23/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2506/21/2011 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2606/21/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom
2706/23/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties
2807/20/2011 MANDATE
2907/25/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 11/24/2014