Court Opinion

ID: 9823629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:04:13.496976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:24.077126
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 24] I concur in the result reached in the opinion. While L agree with the analysis under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), I do not agree that the analysis is necessary in this instance. My concern is that we not establish a precedent that any alleged error in executing a statute or rule of court must be examined as a possible con*88stitutional violation of the right to due process under Eldridge.
[¶ 25] The majority decides the guardian ad litem erred in the application of a court rule and elevates that error to a possible due process violation. The majority concludes the plain language of the rule requires a guardian ad litem to interview the parents but it also concedes that it does not require the guardian ad litem to meet every listed person and interview every listed party. For purposes of my concurrence I agree that under the circumstances of this case the guardian ad litem should have interviewed M.P., the father. I also agree the father has a commanding interest in the decision to terminate his parental rights.
[¶ 26] The father argues the failure of the guardian ad litem to follow the court rule and interview him violated his due process rights. But I know of no constitutional requirement that a guardian ad li-tem be appointed in the first instance, and, more , significantly, that the guardian ad litem appointed for the benefit of the minor child violates the due process rights of the father if the guardian ad litem fails to interview the father. Rather, the father should have insisted on the right to examine the guardian ad litem under oath before the guardian ad litem’s report was introduced for the purpose of arguing the weight of the evidence contained, in that report in light of the guardian ad litem’s failure to interview the father. As the majority opinion notes at ¶ 10, the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. The meaningful time was the January 2016 trial and the meaningful manner was the examination of the guardian ad litem. But, as the majority opinion also notes, the guardian ad litem was not sworn or subject to cross-examination and no party objected to any irregularity m the proceeding.
[¶ 27] I do not believe the father had a due process right to be interviewed by the minor child’s guardian ad litem. Therefore the failure of the guardian ad litem to follow the court rule and interview the father does not implicate the father’s due process rights. Rather, the failure to interview the father should be considered in the light of the interests of the child and the weight to be given to the report of the guardian ad litem.
[¶ 28] C.J. GERALD W. VANDE WALLE,