Rodenbiker v. L.T., 798 N.W.2d 657

L.T., a juvenile, admitted to gross sexual imposition and ingestion of a controlled substance, leading to disposition and commitment to the Division of Juvenile Services.
B.T., L.T.’s father, challenged the referee’s lack of notice to him about L.T.’s mandatory sexual-offender registration as a consequence of the admissions.
L.T. was initially detained, then placed on house arrest, with separate counsel for L.T. but not for B.T. during early proceedings.
The referee ordered evaluations and later determined L.T. would be required to register as a sexual offender; B.T. sought court-appointed counsel for dispositional proceedings.
B.T. appealed alleging § 27-20-26(1) is unconstitutional for denying indigent parents counsel during adjudication, and that the referee erred by not informing him of registration consequences.
The juvenile court and appellate court upheld the referee’s findings and rejected B.T.’s arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is § 27-20-26(1) unconstitutional for withholding counsel for indigent parents during adjudication?	B.T. argues a violation of equal protection and the right to parent.	ND amended statute restricts parental counsel during adjudication and does not violate constitutional rights.	No equal protection violation; rational-basis review applies.
Did the amendments to § 27-20-26(1) infringe parental rights by restricting counsel during adjudication?	B.T. asserts fundamental parental right to counsel during adjudication.	Statutory restriction serves juvenile interests and does not infringe fundamental rights.	Amendments do not infringe fundamental parental rights.
Was the referee required to inform B.T. that L.T.’s admissions would trigger sexual-offender registration?	B.T. contends failure to inform about collateral consequences prejudiced him.	Registration is a collateral consequence not required to be advised; not prejudicial here.	Referee not required to inform about collateral consequences.

Adoption of K.A.S., 499 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1998) (parents have fundamental right to parent; strict scrutiny in termination cases)
State v. Sorenson, 770 N.W.2d 701 (N.D. 2009) (de novo review for constitutional challenges to right to counsel)
San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (wealth alone is not a suspect class; rational basis required)
Interest of A.H., 549 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1996) (parental participation limits in delinquency proceedings to protect juvenile process)
Interest of L.J., 436 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1989) (terminations; fundamental rights concerns; context in parental rights)
Davenport v. State, 620 N.W.2d 164 (N.D. 2000) (collateral consequences vs direct consequences of guilty plea)
State v. Burr, 598 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 1999) (collateral consequences of conviction; public interest)
Gauge v. Clerk of Burleigh County Dist. Court, 429 N.W.2d 429 (N.D. 1988) (rational basis review framework for equal protection challenges)