In the Interest of K.I.B., A Child
No. 20250060
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2025 ND 157 Filed 09-25-2025
Opinion of the Court by Bahr, Justice.
State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellant v. K.I.B., Child, Respondent and Appellee and C.W., Mother (deceased); A.I.B., Father; and A.I.B., Custodian, Respondents
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Opinion of the Court by Bahr, Justice.
Britta K. Joyce (argued) and Daniel A. Gulya (on brief), Assistant State‘s Attorneys, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellant.
Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent and appellee.
[¶1] The State appeals the juvenile court‘s Amended Findings of Fact and Order for Disposition exempting K.I.B. from registration as a sexual offender. Because the court misapplied
I
[¶2] In June 2024, the juvenile court adjudicated K.I.B. delinquent for promoting a sexual performance by a minor in violation of
II
[¶3] K.I.B. asserts the State lacks standing to appeal the juvenile court‘s order because the State is not an aggrieved party.
[¶4] “The right to appeal in this State is governed solely by statute.” Gum v. Muddy Boyz Drywall LLC, 2025 ND 111, ¶ 4, 22 N.W.3d 720 (quoting Sanderson v. Walsh Cnty., 2006 ND 83, ¶ 5, 712 N.W.2d 842). The State appealed under
[¶5] In juvenile matters, this Court has defined an aggrieved party as “one who has some legal interest that may be enlarged or diminished by the appealed decision. The party‘s interest must be immediately, directly, and adversely affected, and an effect that is contingent or indirect, or that results merely in some possible, remote consequence, is insufficient.” Int. of A.P., 2023 ND 39, ¶ 8, 987 N.W.2d 345 (quoting Cossette v. Cass Cnty. Joint Water Res. Dist., 2017 ND 120, ¶ 13, 894 N.W.2d 858).
[¶6] The State has a legitimate public interest in requiring juvenile sexual offenders to register with law enforcement. The primary purpose of registration is to protect public safety and assist law enforcement in monitoring and preventing future offenses. See In re L.T., 2011 ND 120, ¶ 21, 798 N.W.2d 657; State v. Burr, 1999 ND 143, ¶¶ 19, 36, 598 N.W.2d 147. The State‘s interest in protecting public safety through sex offender registration requirements constitutes a legal interest. This interest may be adversely affected by a juvenile court‘s ruling exempting an offender from registration obligations. A judicial determination that a sexual offender need not register may be viewed as undermining the State‘s ability to maintain comprehensive offender databases and implement public safety monitoring systems. The lack of offender registration may diminish the State‘s ability to execute its protective functions.
[¶7] This Court has previously heard the State‘s appeals challenging juvenile courts’ orders not requiring juveniles to register as a sexual offender. See In re M.H.P., 2013 ND 61, ¶ 15, 830 N.W.2d 216 (addressing whether the determination M.H.P. “committed the delinquent act of gross sexual imposition required M.H.P. to register as a sexual offender“); In re D.J., 2011 ND 142, ¶ 1, 800 N.W.2d 333 (appealing a juvenile court order adopting a judicial referee‘s decision exempting D.J. from registering as a sexual offender). The United States Supreme Court has stated, “While we are not bound by previous exercises of jurisdiction in cases in which our power to act was not questioned but was passed sub silentio, neither should we disregard the implications of an exercise
[¶8] While this Court is not bound by its previous exercises of jurisdiction in similar cases, based on
III
[¶9] The State argues the juvenile court erred in concluding it has discretion under
[¶10] The legislature is the policy-making branch of government. In re Mangelsen, 2014 ND 31, ¶ 19, 843 N.W.2d 8 (“It is for the legislature, not the courts, to identify and determine the public policy of the state.“); Montana-Dakota Utils. Co. v. Johanneson, 153 N.W.2d 414, 423 (N.D. 1967) (“As a part of the lawmaking power of the Legislative Assembly, it has the right to determine legislative policy.“). “The policies which it adopts may be wise or otherwise, but it is not the prerogative of the courts to question the wisdom of the laws which the Legislature enacts.” Montana-Dakota Utils., at 423. “This Court‘s function is to interpret the statute as written by the legislature[.]” In re Mangelsen, ¶ 19.
[¶11] This Court reviews the juvenile court‘s interpretation of a statute de novo. State v. Berkley, 2025 ND 134, ¶ 5, 24 N.W.3d 69; In re D.J., 2011 ND 142, ¶ 10; see also Bang v. Cont‘l Res., Inc., 2025 ND 131, ¶ 55, 23 N.W.3d 895 (“Statutory interpretation presents a question of law.“). When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to determine the legislature‘s intent. Berkley, ¶ 5; In re D.J., ¶ 10. To determine the legislature‘s intent, we initially look to the language of the statute. In re D.J., ¶ 10. We construe statutes as a whole, giving meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence, and giving words in a statute their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless they are defined by statute or unless a contrary intention plainly appears.
[¶12] Registration as a sexual offender is governed by
The court shall impose, in addition to any penalty provided by law, a requirement that the individual register . . . . The court shall require an individual to register by stating this requirement on the court records, if that individual:
a. Has pled guilty or nolo contendere to, or been found guilty as a felonious sexual offender or an attempted felonious sexual offender, including juvenile delinquent adjudications of equivalent offenses unless the offense is listed in subdivision c.
. . . .
c. Is a juvenile found delinquent under subdivision d of subsection 1 of section 12.1-20-03, subdivision a of subsection 2 of section 12.1-20-03, or as a sexual offender for a misdemeanor. The court may deviate from requiring the juvenile to register if the court first finds the juvenile has not previously been convicted as a sexual offender or for a crime against a child, and the juvenile did not exhibit mental abnormality or predatory conduct in the commission of the offense.
(Emphasis added.)
[¶13] By its plain terms,
[¶14] Section 12.1-32-15(1)(g), N.D.C.C., defines a sexual offender as “a person who has pled guilty to or been found guilty, including juvenile delinquent adjudications, of a violation of . . . chapter 12.1-27.2[.]” (Emphasis added.) The juvenile court adjudicated K.I.B. delinquent under
[¶15] Under
[¶16] Section 12.1-32-15(2)(a), N.D.C.C., mandates a court require an individual to register as a sexual offender if the individual is adjudicated “as a felonious sexual offender,” except when the offense is listed in section 12.1-32-15(2)(c). The juvenile court did not adjudicate K.I.B. delinquent under the offenses listed in section 12.1-32-15(2)(c), meaning the court did not have discretion to deviate from requiring K.I.B. to register as a sexual offender. The juvenile court misapplied the law and abused its discretion in not requiring K.I.B. to register as a sexual offender.
IV
[¶17] K.I.B. argues this Court cannot require K.I.B. to register as a sexual offender because doing so would increase K.I.B.‘s punishment, which is prohibited under
[¶18] Title 29 of the North Dakota Century Code, titled Judicial Procedure, Criminal, applies to judicial procedures in criminal cases. The juvenile court is not a criminal court. See State v. Overby, 209 N.W. 552, 555 (N.D. 1926) (“The juvenile court is not a criminal court; and it is the purpose of the law to treat juvenile offenders under 18 years of age not as criminals, but, as far as practicable, . . . to save them from the stigma attaching to crime, to guard and protect them against themselves, and all evil-minded persons.“); cf. In Int. of M.D.N., 493 N.W.2d 680, 682 (N.D. 1992) (“Relinquishing juvenile court jurisdiction over young offenders to an adult criminal court represents a choice between sentencing in rehabilitative juvenile courts or sentencing in essentially punitive adult criminal courts.“). Chapter 27-20.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, the Juvenile Court Act, applies to procedures in juvenile cases.
[¶19] Appealability in juvenile cases is controlled by
V
[¶20] The juvenile court misapplied
[¶21] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr