Opinion ID: 887169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: S., (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Text: ¶ 55 Given our direction to counsel representing parents in termination proceedings  and, concomitantly, to the district courts  counsel should not be faulted for attempting to discover the State's case using recognized tools pursuant to the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. That some discovery requests may be objectionable, does not justify throwing the baby out with the bath water by way of blanket protective orders. Objectionable discovery requests, unfortunately, infect most civil proceedings. ¶ 56 Three mandates follow from our decision in A.S.: First, local departments and county attorneys throughout the State should adopt practices and procedures that will facilitate full and expeditious discovery in termination cases. Second, counsel for the parents should utilize appropriate discovery tools in termination proceedings  appropriate meaning, in my view, those which will aid in the discovery of relevant evidence and the search for truth; not those which will simply delay the proceeding and frustrate the State's and the courts' efforts to perform their respective statutory duties. Three, trial judges should exercise their discretion in discovery matters in termination proceedings in the same manner as in any other civil proceeding. Termination cases should not be singled out for special treatment  treatment which typically favors the Department to the prejudice of the parents' rights of due process to discover the State's case. ¶ 57 I concur and dissent.