Matter of Quilt
2011 ND 99
| N.D. | 2011Background
- L.T. admitted to gross sexual imposition and ingestion of a controlled substance in a juvenile delinquency proceeding.
- L.T.’s parents, including B.T., were not separately represented at initial appearances; L.T. had court-appointed counsel.
- Dispositional hearing resulted in L.T. being committed to the Division of Juvenile Services and ordered to register as a sexual offender.
- B.T. challenged the lack of court-appointed counsel during adjudication and the admonition (or lack thereof) about registration consequences.
- Amendments to N.D.C.C. § 27-20-26(1) restricted court-appointed counsel for indigent parents in adjudicative stages.
- The juvenile court and referee upheld the commitment and the registration; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 27-20-26(1) violates equal protection or due process for indigent parents during adjudication. | B.T. argues the statute eliminates indigent parents’ right to counsel during adjudication. | State contends amendments rationally balance juvenile interests; no fundamental right to such counsel. | Rational-basis review; statute does not violate equal protection or due process. |
| Whether the referee was required to inform B.T. that L.T.’s admissions could trigger sexual-offender registration. | B.T. asserts collateral consequences should be disclosed at adjudication. | Registration is a collateral consequence not required to be advised at adjudication. | No obligation to inform; collateral consequences need not be disclosed in this context. |
| Whether the amendments to § 27-20-26(1) appropriately safeguard juveniles’ rights while limiting parental involvement. | Higher risk of parental obstruction or conflict if parents have counsel during adjudication. | Amendments protect juvenile rights and reduce conflict, aligning with state interests. | Amendments rationally related to legitimate governmental purposes; no fundamental rights violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sorenson, 2009 ND 147 (N.D. 2009) (de novo review of constitutional claims in juvenile context)
- Adoption of K.A.S., 499 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1993) (parents have fundamental right to parent; strict scrutiny in termination context)
- Interest of A.H., 549 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1996) (parent participation limits in delinquency proceedings; competing interests)
- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1973) (wealth discrimination not a suspect class; rational basis suffices)
- Davenport v. State, 2000 ND 218 (N.D. 2000) (collateral consequences need not be explained for guilty pleas)
- State v. Burr, 1999 ND 143 (N.D. 1999) (sexual-offender registration is a collateral consequence)
- Gange v. Clerk of Burleigh County Dist. Court, 429 N.W.2d 429 (N.D. 1988) (rational-basis review framework in constitutional challenges)
- Kavadas v. Lorenzen, 448 N.W.2d 219 (N.D. 1989) (fundamental parenting rights and due process considerations)