Kingstone v. Tedrow Kingstone

A juvenile court must comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") in termination of parental rights proceedings where the court knows or has reason to know an Indian child is involved. To determine whether ICWA applies in a termination of parental rights proceeding, a juvenile court must make an initial inquiry as to whether an Indian child is involved.

Rule 11(a)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P., addresses conditional guilty pleas and requires: (1) the defendant, any defendant's attorney, and the prosecuting attorney consent in writing to the conditional plea; (2) the court accept the conditional plea and enter an order; and (3) the judgment specify the plea is conditional. Temporary remand is warranted for the district court's determination whether the plea was conditional and, if so, entry of an order and judgment consistent with the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2).

An order from a district court granting a motion to disqualify an attorney is not appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(3) or the collateral order doctrine. Supervisory jurisdiction may be exercised to review an order granting a motion to disqualify an attorney because a civil litigant has a protected interest in counsel of the litigant's choice, and an appeal from a final judgment is not an adequate remedy for erroneous disqualification. When a district court finds a lawyer-client relationship between an attorney and a company based on objective manifestations, including providing legal advice to the company's officers and employees, the district court does not abuse its discretion in disqualifying the attorney under N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a)(1) if the attorney represents clients on both sides of the litigation. A district court commits legal error by concluding an attorney has a lawyer-client relationship with a company solely because the attorney signed and prosecuted derivative claims brought by a shareholder on behalf of the company. An error is harmless if it does not affect the outcome of the case or a party's substantial rights.

A district court has jurisdiction to modify a foreign custody determination, including visitation orders, when the child's home state is North Dakota and the child and parents no longer reside in the issuing jurisdiction. Appellate courts have the authority and duty to determine the applicability of relevant statutes to legal controversies, even when the parties do not identify those statutes or argue for their application. When a parent seeks to modify an existing nonparent visitation order, the court must apply the modification standards under the Uniform Nonparent Custody and Visitation Act. When modifying an order granting nonparent visitation, the court must determine whether the nonparent rebutted in the initial proceeding the presumption that the parent's decision regarding visitation is in the child's best interest. If the nonparent rebutted the presumption in the initial proceeding, the presumption remains rebutted.