Opinion ID: 897320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Child Testimony

Text: [¶ 15] Reineke contends the court erred in refusing to allow the children to testify. [¶ 16] Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(i), one of the factors the court must consider in making a child custody determination is [t]he reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. Generally, a trial court has wide discretion regarding the examination of witnesses, and, under appropriate circumstances, a court may refuse to allow a witness to testify. Fargo Women's Health Org., Inc. v. Larson, 391 N.W.2d 627, 630 (N.D.1986). Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 61, [n]o error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence ... is ground for granting a new trial or ... otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. [¶ 17] The legislature has determined that fourteen-year-old children are capable of acting responsibly in a variety of matters. See, e.g., N.D.C.C. § 14-10-17 (Any person of the age of fourteen years or older may contract for and receive examination, care, or treatment for sexually transmitted disease, alcoholism, or drug abuse without permission, authority, or consent of a parent or guardian.); N.D.C.C. § 27-20-34 (prosecution of a child of fourteen or more years of age for delinquent conduct designated a crime or offense may be transferred from juvenile court to another court); N.D.C.C. § 30.1-27-03 (A minor of fourteen or more years may prevent an appointment of the minor's testamentary guardian from becoming effective, or may cause a previously accepted appointment to terminate.); N.D.C.C. § 30.1-27-06 (The court shall appoint [as guardian] a person nominated by the minor, if the minor is fourteen years of age or older, unless the court finds the appointment contrary to the best interests of the minor.); N.D.C.C. § 47-24.1-14 (on petition of a minor who has attained the age of fourteen years, a court may order a custodian of the minor's property to deliver or pay to the minor so much of the custodial property as the court considers advisable); N.D.C.C. § 47-24.1-18 (a minor who has attained the age of fourteen years may designate a successor custodian if none has been designated, and may petition the court to remove a custodian and to designate a successor custodian). Thus, there is a legislative policy that children of the age of those involved in this case can and do make significant decisions in their lives, which courts must consider in determining children's custody preferences, and in making custody decisions. [¶ 18] Although N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1) only requires a court to consider a child's reasonable custodial preference, without guaranteeing a right to testify, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the fourteen and seventeen-year-old children in this case to testify, without first assessing whether the children were of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. [¶ 19] Although we have concluded the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the children to testify without such an assessment, we do not reverse the court's custody determination, because the court assumed the daughter preferred to live with her father in making its determination, and, under the trial court's analysis, consideration of the statutory factors overwhelmingly favored Michels.