Court Opinion

ID: 9574213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:03:23.990644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:14.883847
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the opinion by Justice Neumann for the court. I write separately to register a concern.
On September 21,1989, the Juvenile Court for Traill County determined that these twins were deprived and placed legal custody of them with Traill County Social Services. Since then, as Justice Neumann notes, actual physical custody has bounced around. The attorney for the father represented to the referee here, at the August 31, 1993 hearing, that “pending the outcome of this trial the children continue[d] in the legal and physical custody of [Traill County] social services for foster care placement.”
The GAL believed, and reported to the referee, that “Traill County Social Services has recently recommended that parental rights should be terminated.” However, the GAL presented no evidence or proof of that. If he had, I have no doubt that it would have been necessary for the court below to hold up and defer to any renewed deprivation proceeding in the Juvenile Court.
While I understand the jurisdictional separation summarized in the majority opinion and created by our past cases on this subject, there remains a need for formal notice and procedures to facilitate the separate processes.
NDCC 14-14-10 directs that, “[i]f the court learns ... that a person not a party to the custody proceeding has physical custody of the child ..., it shall order that person to be joined as a party and to be duly notified of the pendency of the proceeding and of his joinder as a party.” See also NDCC 14-14-02(3): “ ‘Custody proceeding’ includes proceedings in which a custody determination is one of several issues, such as an action for divorce or separation, and includes child neglect, dependency, and deprivation proceedings.”
Since the Traill County Social Service agency had continuing physical custody of these two children, I believe that the referee should have ordered the joinder of and notice to the custodial agency. It appears that this was not done, although the attorney for the father did represent to the referee that “[n]o-*412tice of this hearing was given to Traill County, and they have chosen not to appear.”
On this record, the exact status of the children at the time of the hearing is unclear. However, the question of notice to or joinder of the custodial agency was not presented on this appeal. Yet, in another case, a court facing this jurisdictional separation should, at least, make certain of notice to and joinder of any physical custodian of any child whose future the court is affecting.