Except as otherwise provided by these rules, Rules 1-2, 4-17, and 901-907 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts apply to juvenile protection matters. Rules 3 and 101-814 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts do not apply to juvenile protection matters. Rule 5 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts does not apply to attorneys who represent Indian tribes in juvenile protection matters.
Minn. Juve. Prot. P. 3.06
2019 Advisory Committee Comment
Rule 3 is amended in 2019 as part of a revision of the Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure. The amendments to Rule 3 are not intended to substantively change the rule's meaning.
Rule 3.02 refers to Minn. Stat. § 260C.165, which makes various types of statements admissible in juvenile protection matters. The prior version of Rule 3.02 restated the statutory language, but the amended rule simply cites the statute.
Rule 3.06 describes which of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts apply to juvenile protection matters. General Rule of Practice 5 in general provides that an "out-of-state lawyer is subject to all rules that apply to lawyers admitted in Minnesota, including rules related to e-filing." Consistent with the letter and spirit of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Juvenile Protection Rules Committee does not want to place any barriers to participation by Indian tribes in juvenile protection matters. For that reason, Rule 3.06 provides that the requirements of General Rule of Practice 5 relating to pro hac vice admissions and electronic filing do not apply to attorneys who represent Indian tribes. General Rule of Practice 10, as amended in 2018, addresses recognition of orders, judgments, and other judicial acts of the tribal courts of any federally recognized Indian tribe. Rule 10.01 addresses situations where recognition is mandatory (including when recognition is required by the Indian Child Welfare Act), and Rule 10.03 addresses situations where recognition is discretionary.