Court Opinion

ID: 7876082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 21:10:54.179842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:31:24.008995
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons expressed so well in the special concurrence of Justice Levine. I stress the fact that Sally left the hearing without any certainty that her parental rights were terminated under the delayed judgment procedure planned. When she did not hear from “her” attorney that a “final” judgment had been entered as to her, it is not surprising that she made further inquiries and, after independent legal advice, changed her mind about a matter so fundamental.
I would hold that Sally was not adequately represented by independent counsel, and, therefore, her Rule 60(b) motion should have been granted. This is not merely a commercial matter to be weighed on the same scales as in First National Bank of Crosby v. Bjorgen, 389 N.W.2d 789 (N.D.1986).