M.M. v. M.M. (In Re M.M.), 924 N.W.2d 132

Petition filed Oct 17, 2017 alleging juvenile M.M. committed simple assault and contact by bodily fluids while at Home on the Range; M.M. was housed at the Youth Correctional Center.
Initial appearance occurred Nov 7, 2017; pretrial set for Nov 14 and adjudicative (trial) hearing set for Nov 27, 2017.
On Nov 21, 2017 M.M. moved to dismiss the petition for failure to hold the required hearing within 30 days of filing and requested a continuance for discovery; the State opposed dismissal as untimely and argued the juvenile was not in detention.
Juvenile court denied the motion to dismiss but granted a continuance; M.M. later entered conditional admissions to preserve appeal of the dismissal ruling.
The Supreme Court majority held Rule 2(a)(3) of the N.D. Rules of Juvenile Procedure was ambiguous as to whether the 30‑day limit applied to the initial hearing or the adjudicative hearing and relied on the explanatory note and Unified Judicial System Policy 409 to conclude the initial hearing satisfied the 30‑day requirement.

Issue	M.M.'s Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the hearing on the petition had to be held within 30 days of filing (timeliness)	"Hearing on the petition" means the adjudicative hearing; petition must be dismissed because adjudicative hearing was set beyond 30 days	The 30‑day requirement refers to the initial hearing; initial hearing occurred within 30 days so no dismissal required	Court: Rule 2(a)(3) ambiguous; explanatory note and Policy 409 show initial hearing within 30 days satisfies rule; affirm denial of dismissal
Whether extrinsic materials (explanatory note/Policy 409) may be used to interpret Rule 2(a)(3)	Implied: rely on plain text of rule to require adjudicative hearing within 30 days	Argues initial hearing suffices; court may consult explanatory aids to resolve ambiguity	Court: Because rule ambiguous, extrinsic aids (explanatory note and Policy 409) were appropriate; Policy 409 distinguishes initial vs adjudicative hearing and extends adjudication deadline if initial hearing occurs

In re H.K., 778 N.W.2d 764 (N.D. 2010) (standard of review for juvenile court findings and change in review practice)
In re J.K., 763 N.W.2d 507 (N.D. 2009) (background on appellate review of juvenile matters)
In re R.A., 799 N.W.2d 332 (N.D. 2011) (statutory interpretation as a question of law fully reviewable on appeal)
State v. Rambousek, 479 N.W.2d 832 (N.D. 1992) (principles of statutory construction apply to rule interpretation)
Desert Partners IV, L.P. v. Benson, 855 N.W.2d 608 (N.D. 2014) (give words plain meaning and harmonize related provisions when construing rules)
State v. Rue, 626 N.W.2d 681 (N.D. 2001) (definition of ambiguity and recourse to extrinsic aids)
State v. Lamb, 541 N.W.2d 457 (N.D. 1996) (use of official explanatory notes to construe rules)