Court Opinion

ID: 9702686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:21:06.396702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:40.593574
License: Public Domain

MAURICE R. HUNKE, District Judge,
concurring.
Having been the trial judge in Anton v. Anton, 442 N.W.2d 445 (N.D.1989), I sense a bit of irony participating in this decision. Justice Neumann’s opinion reflects one of the several possible — and reasonable — applications of NDROC Rule 3.2 and I therefore concur in the result.
It is apparent from this case and others that the patchwork construction and amendment of NDROC Rule 3.2 through the years has created procedural folly in our motion practice. I suggest that the Joint Procedure Committee should revisit Rule 3.2 and fashion anew an efficient procedure for modern motion practice.
I also write separately to comment that all parties might have been better served if the trial court had referred this matter to Juvenile Court. Norman’s motion alleged essentially, as did the initial petitions in this proceeding, that the children are deprived because of the violent death of their mother caused deliberately by their father and because of subsequent circumstances. NDCC 27-20-03(1) provides the Juvenile Court with “exclusive original jurisdiction” over such matters.
Among the beneficial aspects of confidential Juvenile Court jurisdiction would be to spare the children the glare and stare of yet more publicity. Such economic concerns of the children as require attention can be handled in a simple conservatorship.