Denham v. D.J., 800 N.W.2d 333

Bryan Denham appeals a juvenile court order adopting a referee’s decision that D.J. is not required to register as a sexual offender.
D.J., age sixteen, admitted to a delinquent act of gross sexual imposition involving a six-year-old victim.
The referee ordered a sexual offender evaluation and reserved the registration issue; later, Minnesota-based evaluations were referenced but not made part of the record.
The State sought registration findings; the hearing proceeded with telephonic and continuance arrangements but no evaluations were admitted as evidence.
The referee concluded the State bore the burden to prove registration and that it failed to sustain that burden; the juvenile court adopted this ruling.
The Court reverses and remands for proper production of court-ordered reports/evaluations and explicit findings under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §12.1-32-15(2)(c) permit deviation from registration for juveniles?	Denham contends deviation is permissible only with evidence of no mental abnormality or predatory conduct.	D.J. and K.L. urge that the State must prove the elements for registration and any deviation findings must be supported by records.	Plain language allows deviation where criteria met and evidence supports findings.
Must court-ordered reports/evaluations be produced for registration findings?	State argues it produced necessary evaluations and can proceed.	D.J. and K.L. argue reports were never properly admitted or made part of the record.	Court must require production of court-ordered reports/evaluations to support findings.
May the juvenile court rely on evaluations to determine registration requirements?	State seeks to rely on Minnesota reports to prove registration necessity.	Defendants contend no proper record or findings were made.	Court may order and rely on court-ordered evaluations in making registration findings.
Did the lack of on-record findings violate due process and statutory requirements?	State maintains burden-shifting did not foreclose proper findings.	Defendants assert the court failed to make requisite mental abnormality/predatory findings.	Yes; the absence of explicit findings and records was error requiring reversal.

Interest of A.R., 2010 ND 84 (2010) (standard of review for juvenile decisions)
Interest of R.W.S., 2007 ND 37 (2007) (due process and statutory interpretation principles)
B.D.H. v. Mickelson, 2010 ND 235 (2010) (statutory interpretation and review standard)