Court Opinion

ID: 9798554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 05:10:19.121341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:25.074315
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 23] I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 24] When a district court finds child abuse and endangerment in the home of one parent, it is not at all clear how weighing other factors could result in the child’s being left in that situation. Nevertheless, the majority here would send this case back for such weighing by more explicitly addressing other best-interest factors.
[¶ 25] Curiously, the majority asserts the court did not address relevant testimony of the social worker. But the court did address it implicitly by finding that “[t]he most compelling testimony and evidence which was submitted during the hearing relative to the issue of the child’s environment came from Officer Dingeman from the Burleigh County Sheriffs Department.”
[¶ 26] The court was entitled to rely on admissible hearsay, particularly the relayed statements of the child, including that she was hit with a stick. The district court found bruising and scratch marks. The child said she was spanked by her mother and hit with a stick by her half brother. The officer testified to seeing a visible hand mark and scratches on the child. The social worker’s testimony was unimpressive, to say the least:
Q. The July 30th letter states no services were required; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q-That does not mean, however, that abuse didn’t occur; is that correct?
A. That means that abuse did not occur.
Q-That what condition did not occur?
A. That abuse did not occur.
Q-How can you tell?
A. That the criteria for — for abuse, it did not occur, so—
Q-What is the criteria?
A. I’d have to — I’d have to — I can’t name it. It would have to be that it would be disclosed. It would — that it — that it would be — I just — I— honestly, I couldn’t tell you right off the top of my head.
Q-One of the items was that it would have to be disclosed; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q-And [the child] did not disclose?
A. She was not asked.
Q-She was not asked?
A. She was not asked.
[[Image here]]
Q Now, I guess I don’t understand this statement in your letter on Plaintiffs Exhibit 2. The decision was made for no services required as it was not determined that abuse by an adult had occurred. That’s not a very clear statement is it, they could not determine?
A. Could not determine.
Q. That’s kind of a vague statement, don’t you think? It seems to be “they could not determine” does not mean that it did not happen, isn’t that correct?
*705A. I — it—according to what our information was, we could not determine.
Q. Now, did you physically look at [the child]?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did anybody physically look at [the child]?
A. I can’t answer for that, if — if anybody else did.
[¶ 27] The father testified at the hearing, but the mother did not. There is no evidence in the record of problems with primary residential responsibility being with the father. The court concluded the child may be endangered in the mother’s home, and said it basically agreed with the best interest analysis in the father’s pre-hearing brief, stating which factors supported the father and which favored neither party. No factors favored the mother. On the basis of the finding on endangerment and the rest of the court’s findings, I would affirm.
[¶ 28] Dale V. Sandstrom