Appellants argue that the referee erred in refusing to subpoena Kolb before the February 7 hearing. The pamphlet explains that if witnesses will not appear voluntarily, they may be subpoenaed by a party. Appellants argue that telephone appearances are allowed only upon the agreement of all parties, and appellants did not agree to Kolb's telephone appearance on April 4. A state human services referee may schedule a telephone conference hearing when the distance or time required to travel to the county agency offices will cause a delay in the issuance of an order, or to promote efficiency, or at the mutual request of the parties. The referee's decision was proper because it promoted efficiency.
Appellants argue that the district court erred in deciding to hold an evidentiary hearing at all.
They claim that the tapes from the DHS hearing were destroyed intentionally to obtain a new hearing in district court. But appellants themselves urged that the district court hold an evidentiary hearing. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not err in following that suggestion. Appellants also make arguments regarding John Haken. Appellants did not appeal that order.