Court Opinion

ID: 9514138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:44:48.163036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:12.518832
License: Public Domain

KAPSNER, Justice,
concurring.
[¶ 11] I join in the result reached by the majority, but not in the analysis. Although Seiler argues that her constitutional rights were violated, neither party has argued or briefed the constitutional analysis of separation of powers offered by the majority opinion. I am hesitant to join in an opinion that suggests analyzing whether the constitutional rights of a person who has encountered the power of the state were violated is a “nonjudicial dut[y]” without benefit of appropriate briefing. Instead, the decision can be reached on the narrow basis that review of the issue Seiler raises is unnecessary to the decision. The Department of Human Services took action based upon testimony given by the child’s teacher and a social worker. A review of Seiler’s assertion of privilege is unnecessary. Seiler refused to testify on the matters at issue. Other testimony supports the action of the Department. I would affirm.
[¶ 12] Dale Y. Sandstrom, J., concurs.