Court Opinion

ID: 9805305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 17:48:28.042614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:43:50.369039
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 16] I reluctantly concur in the result reached by the majority. My reluctance is based on the majority’s acceptance of the procedure whereby the juvenile court adopted- the analysis of the best interest factors set forth in the State’s post-hearing brief. In doing so it notes that while this is not the preferred method, there is .no absolute. proscription to incorporating a document by reference in the court’s opinion and cites to Mahoney v. Mahoney, 516 N.W.2d 656, 659 (N.D.Ct.App.1994), in which the court of appeals allowed a trial court to incorporate by reference its oral findings made at hearing. I believe there is a vast difference in incorporating findings made by the court on the record at hearing and incorporating by reference the analysis made in the brief of an attorney.
[¶ 17] The majority also cites to Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 2005 ND 131, ¶ 4, 700 N.W.2d 711. Gonzalez in turn cited to Schmidlcunz v. Schmidkunz, 529 N.W.2d 857, 859 (N.D.1995), where the trial court adopted as its opinion the defense counsel’s post-trial brief. We observed:
Because such an approach may fail to foster the appearance of fairness and impartiality in our courts, and may therefore reduce confidence in our judicial system, we cannot approve it as a practice. It is preferable that the court, if it chooses to issue a written memorandum opinion, state in its own words the rationale and basis for its decision.
[¶ 18] I remain convinced of that concern and I fear this decision, under the guise of strained judicial resources and time savings to the court, will only erode the public’s confidence in our judicial system. Justice Paul Sand, writing for the Court said: “We cannot permit the court’s previous admonitions to be disregarded or to be treated as a bruten fulmen .(empty noise) which is what it would be if we were to merely repeat a threat to enforce.” McCullough v. Swanson, 245 N.W.2d 262, 265 (N.D.1976).
[¶ 19] Nevertheless, at the risk of simply adding to the “empty noise,” I reluctantly agree with the majority that under the facts on the record in this case we can affirm the juvenile court. But, perhaps the time has come to consider amending Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., to require that all findings be prepared by the court rath*374er than assigning counsel to prepare findings or incorporating by reference findings made by someone other than the judge. See Warner v. Johnson, 213 N.W.2d 895, 897-900 (N.D.1978) (citing cases criticizing the practice). On appeal, we should then reject any findings which do not comply with the rule.
[¶ 20] DANIEL J. CROTHERS, J., concur.