author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Bradley C. RHODES, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 155913.
    No. A04-2252.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Nov. 1, 2007.

      Bradley C. Rhodes, Aitkin, MN, pro se.

      Craig Donald Klausing, Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, St. Paul, MN, for Respondent.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This lawyer discipline action .arose out of a petition served and filed by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility alleging that Bradley C. Rhodes violated the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct by: failing to abide by client decisions concerning the objectives of the representation (Rule 1.2); failing to act diligently in client matters (Rule 1.3); failing to reasonably communicate with clients (Rule 1.4); acquiring an interest in client property without the client’s informed consent (Rule 1.8(a)); failing to hold client funds in trust (Rule 1.15(a)); failing to return client property and unearned fee payments (Rule 1.15(c)); failing to protect clients’ interests upon termination of the representation (Rule 1.16(d)); and failing to respond to the disciplinary authority (Rule 8.1(b)). The petition also alleges that Rhodes’s conduct violated Rule 25 of the Minnesota Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility and a previous order by this court placing Rhodes on probation subject to specific conditions. After Rhodes failed to respond to the petition, we deemed the allegations in the petition admitted and set the matter for oral argument to determine the . appropriate discipline. The Director recommends that we disbar Rhodes. We conclude that the appropriate discipline under the facts and circumstances of this case is disbarment.

Rhodes was admitted to the practice of law in Minnesota in May 1984. We disciplined Rhodes for professional misconduct on three previous occasions. In February 1992, we admonished Rhodes for failing to refund unearned client fees. We admonished Rhodes again in July 1996 for failing to serve an answer to a summons and complaint until after a default hearing had occurred in the action. Finally, on May 18, 2005, we admonished Rhodes and placed him on supervised probation for 2 years for failing to file two briefs on behalf of a client and for failing to cooperate with the investigation into that misconduct. See In re Rhodes, 696 N.W.2d 328, 329 (Minn.2005).

The current disciplinary petition is based on Rhodes’s failure to comply with the terms of the probation previously ordered by this court, new acts of professional misconduct in seven client matters, and Rhodes’s failure to cooperate with the investigation into this new professional misconduct.

A. Violation of Probation Conditions

As a condition of the probation we imposed in May 2005,. Rhodes was required to, among other things, provide a list of lawyers who agreed to serve as his probation supervisor, submit specific information about all his active cases by the first of each month, provide a written plan of his office procedures to ensure compliance with the probation terms, and cooperate with the Director’s efforts to monitor Rhodes’s compliance with the probation. Rhodes failed to submit the list of potential supervisors and the office procedures within the specified timeframe, and repeatedly failed to submit a monthly list of his active cases in a timely fashion. Rhodes also failed, without explanation, to attend two meetings with the Director to discuss Rhodes’s compliance with the probation terms and failed to respond to several communications from his probation supervisor and the Director.

B. New Professional Misconduct in Client Matters

G.O. and L.O. paid Rhodes $1,000 in January 2004 to represent them in a mechanic’s lien action. After the initial meeting, Rhodes failed to respond to telephone calls or letters from G.O. and L.O. When the representation was eventually terminated, Rhodes failed to return the clients’ file, which included documents necessary to defend their claim. Rhodes has also failed to account for any legal services provided in this matter or to refund the $1,000 G.O. and L.O. paid him.

V.M. paid Rhodes a $500 retainer to represent her in a probate matter. Rhodes deposited this money in his personal account rather than in a trust account. Over the next several months, Rhodes failed to respond to numerous communications from Y.M. Ultimately, Rhodes failed to either provide documentation of any legal work performed or refund the $500, and failed to return original documents provided by V.M.

W.R. retained Rhodes in January 2005 to defend him against a driving under the influence (DUI) criminal charge. W.R. and Rhodes agreed to seek modification of an earlier DUI conviction to avoid the permanent loss of W.R.’s driver’s license, but Rhodes failed to pursue that strategy within the required timeframe. Before a hearing in March 2006, Rhodes told W.R. that he had negotiated a plea agreement that would result in a conviction for careless- driving rather than DUI, and that Rhodes would prepare the documents necessary to finalize the plea agreement. Rhodes apparently failed to prepare these documents, and did not return several telephone calls from W.R. inquiring into.the matter. Finally, in September 2006, W.R. fired Rhodes and personally negotiated a new agreement with the prosecutor.

Rhodes began representing K.M. in a marriage dissolution proceeding in April 2005. Although the parties to the dissolution reached a settlement a few months later, Rhodes failed to prepare and distribute the settlement documents as he had agreed to do. Subsequently, a dispute between KM. and his former spouse led the district court to order the proceedings be reopened. K.M. paid Rhodes $2,000 to appeal the order reopening the proceedings after Rhodes told him there was a strong chance of success. Over the next few months, Rhodes took no action on the appeal and failed to return several telephone calls from KM. When KM. confronted Rhodes over this lack of action, Rhodes stated that he had unilaterally decided not to appeal the matter. Rhodes has not provided an accounting of any legal work performed for the $2,000 payment.

In July 2005, Rhodes received $1,000— including $300 for a filing fee and $700 as an advance attorney’s fee payment — to represent M.K in her marriage dissolution proceeding. Rhodes failed to place any of this money in a trust account. During the course of the representation, Rhodes failed to return several telephone messages from M.K. and her family, including calls concerning threats of physical violence made by M.K.’s former spouse against M.K. and her infant daughter. Rhodes has also failed to account for any legal work performed in this matter. Although Rhodes eventually agreed to refund the $1,000, the check he sent to M.K was denied for insufficient funds and the money was never repaid.

In December 2005, P.T. and D.T. paid Rhodes $500 to represent them in a property dispute. Although Rhodes initially stated that the matter would be resolved by spring 2006, when P.T. spoke to him a few months later, Rhodes indicated that he had not yet begun working on the matter because “he had been too busy.” Over the next few months, Rhodes failed to respond to several communications from P.T. and D.T. In July 2006, Rhodes finally agreed to return the $500 payment and documents, including the original abstract of title and property survey, that he had been given. Neither the money nor the documents were ever returned.

N.F. retained Rhodes to defend her against criminal theft charges related to her handling of a trust. N.F.’s husband, D.F., subsequently retained Rhodes in an unrelated criminal matter. In January 2006, N.F. and D.F. paid Rhodes $500 toward their legal fees and gave him six firearms as collateral for the additional fees. N.F. also gave Rhodes a bag of documents and receipts relating to the trust expenditures as evidence that the payments were legitimate. Rhodes met with N.F. in August 2006 to discuss her case, but N.F. was unable to contact Rhodes during the subsequent months. In November 2006, Rhodes failed to appear at a scheduled court proceeding in N.F.’s criminal case. Rhodes also failed to return the evidence provided by N.F. and the firearms provided as collateral for legal fees.

C. Noncooperation with the Investigation

Between October 2005 and February 2007, the Director issued 11 notices of investigations regarding- Rhodes’s failure to follow the conditions of his probation, the new allegations of professional misconduct outlined above, and a separate complaint forwarded to the Director by court personnel. During this period, Rhodes failed to respond to any of the complaints and to several related communications from the district ethics committee investigator and the Director.

I.

We do not impose disciplinary sanctions to punish a lawyer; rather, we do so “to protect the public, to guard the administration of justice and to deter future misconduct” by both the individual lawyer and by other members of the legal profession. In re Grzybek, 567 N.W.2d 259, 262 (Minn.1997) (Grzybek II); see also In re Brooks, 696 N.W.2d 84, 87-88 (Minn.2005). When determining the appropriate sanction, we consider four factors: “(1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the disciplinary violations; (3) the harm to the public; and (4) the harm to the legal profession.” In re Nelson, 733 N.W.2d 458, 463 (Minn.2007). Discipline is imposed based on the unique circumstances of each case, but previous cases are used to draw analogies and to promote consistency in sanctions over time. Id. at 463-64; In re Harp, 560 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Minn.1997).

A. Neglect of Client Matters, Failure to Communicate with Clients, and Failure to Return Client Property

We have repeatedly warned that “[a] continuing pattern of client neglect is serious misconduct often warranting indefinite. suspension by itself,” Brooks, 696 N.W.2d at 88, and that more “extreme” cases involving client neglect and failure to communicate with clients may merit disbarment, In re De Rycke, 707 N.W.2d 370, 374 (Minn.2006). See also Grzybek II, 567 N.W.2d at 263. We have also stated that the failure to return client property and files upon the termination of the attorney-client relationship warrants “serious treatment,” particularly when this misconduct “continued a pattern of conduct for which we already disciplined [the lawyer]” and when this misconduct “caused substantial inconvenience and unnecessary frustration to [the lawyer’s] clients.” Grzybek II, 567 N.W.2d at 263.

The admitted allegations against Rhodes reveal a pattern of neglecting client matters and noncommunication with clients that involves seven new client matters and that closely resembles the misconduct for which we previously disciplined Rhodes. Moreover, the property Rhodes failed to return to his clients included original documents necessary to G.O. and L.O.’s mechanic’s lien defense, an original abstract of title and property survey, and evidence regarding N.F.’s defense against criminal charges. Rhodes’s retention of these documents likely caused a great deal of inconvenience to his clients. We conclude that this behavior constitutes serious professional misconduct and warrants severe discipline.

B.Financial Misconduct

The misappropriation of client funds is particularly serious misconduct arid usually warrants disbarment “absent ‘clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.’ ” De Rycke, 707 N.W.2d at 374 (quoting In re Swerine, 513 N.W.2d 463, 466 (Minn.1994)). In this case, Rhodes accepted more than $5,000 from his clients without accounting for any legal services provided for these payments. The Director concedes in his brief that Rhodes has only been found to have failed to account for client funds, not to have misappropriated those funds. But the Director argues that Rhodes’s misconduct should be treated as severely as misappropriation because Rhodes’s failure to cooperate is what caused the inability to determine whether Rhodes misappropriated client funds or only failed to account for the funds and because, from a client’s perspective, the two violations are the same. We agree that Rhodes’s misconduct in this case, whether characterized as misappropriation or failure to account, is a serious violation of the rules of professional conduct and merits severe discipline.

C. Violation of the Terms of Disciplinary Probation

Failure to comply with the conditions of probation ordered by this court is an additional act of professional misconduct. See Grzybek II, 567 N.W.2d at 264-65 (failure to comply with court orders is a “serious violation”); Minn. R. Prof. Cond. 8.1(b); R. Lawyer Prof. Resp. 25. Although we occasionally determine that additional or modified probation is an appropriate sanction for probation violations, we generally conclude that “supervised probation is not appropriate where the attorney consistently fails to communicate with the Director,” In re Danielson, 620 N.W.2d 718, 721 (Minn.2001); see also In re Anderson, 734 N.W.2d 238 (Minn.2007). In this case, Rhodes’s repeated failure to respond to the Director’s inquiries and to participate in the disciplinary process would render the mere extension or modification of his prior probation inappropriate. We therefore conclude that Rhodes’s violation of the conditions of his prior probation is an independent act of misconduct warranting professional discipline.

D. Noncooperation with the Disciplinary Process

A lawyer’s failure to cooperate with an investigation into professional misconduct is serious misconduct that constitutes separate grounds for discipline. De Rycke, 707 N.W.2d at 375; see also Brooks, 696 N.W.2d at 88; Grzybek II, 567 N.W.2d at 264. Noncooperation has been found to warrant indefinite suspension on its own, Brooks, 696 N.W.2d at 88, and to increase the severity of the disciplinary sanction when connected with other professional misconduct, De Rycke, 707 N.W.2d at 375; see In re Mayrand, 723 N.W.2d 261, 269 (Minn.2006) (referring to noncooperation as a “serious aggravating factor [ ]”). In this case, Rhodes failed to respond to the. 11 notices of investigation and repeated requests for information from the district ethics committee investigator and the Director. Rhodes has also failed to appear before this court in these proceedings. We conclude that Rhodes’s repeated failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process is a serious aggravating factor in determining the appropriate discipline.

E. Prior History of Professional Misconduct and Discipline

“After a disciplinary proceeding, [this court] expectfs] a renewed commitment to comprehensive ethical and professional behavior.” In re Weems, 540 N.W.2d 305, 309 (Minn.1995). Accordingly, we consider a lawyer’s prior discipline and professional misconduct when determining the appropriate discipline for new misconduct. Brooks, 696 N.W.2d at 88. We generally impose “more severe sanctions when the current misconduct is similar to misconduct for which the attorney has already been disciplined.” Id. The new professional misconduct for which we are disciplining Rhodes includes the neglect of seven client matters (including repeated failure to submit promised documents), the failure to account for client fees, and the failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. Moreover, most of this new misconduct occurred at the same time as, and in the months immediately following, the previous disciplinary proceedings against Rhodes for similar violations (failing to submit two briefs and noncooperation with the disciplinary investigation): Finally, the new misconduct is also similar to the misconduct for which we admonished Rhodes in 1992 (failing to return unearned fees) and 1996 (failing to timely serve an answer to a complaint). We conclude that Rhodes’s disciplinary history is a serious aggravating factor in determining the appropriate discipline in this case.

II.

In determining the appropriate discipline for professional misconduct, we consider not just the nature of each individual violation of the rules of professional conduct but also the cumulative weight of all of the professional misconduct in determining the appropriate sanction. We have repeatedly held that “ ‘[t]he cumulative weight and severity of multiple disciplinary rule violations may compel severe discipline even when a single act standing alone would not have warranted such. discipline.’ ” Nelson, 733 N.W.2d at 464 (quoting In re Oberhauser, 679 N.W.2d 153, 160 (Minn.2004)). In this case, Rhodes’s pattern of neglecting client matters, his repeated failure to communicate with clients, and his financial misconduct involving more than $5,000 in clients funds each warrant severe discipline individually. Rhodes’s misconduct also includes violations of the conditions we imposed on his prior disciplinary probation and two significant aggravating factors — his repeated failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process and his history of prior misconduct and discipline. Finally, the. record does not contain any suggestion of mitigating factors.

In support of his recommendation that we disbar Rhodes, the Director cites Grzy-bek II as an analogous case. In July 1996, we suspended Grzybek for 6 months for failing to establish the basis for legal fees, to keep his clients informed, to respond to client communications, to promptly return client property, and to cooperate with the Director’s investigation. In re Grzybek, 552 N.W.2d 215, 215-17 (Minn.1996) (Grzybek I). Approximately 6 months later, the Director filed a new petition alleging that Grzybek neglected client matters, failed to communicate with clients, misappropriated $750 of client funds, failed to cooperate with the disciplinary process, and disobeyed court orders. Grzybek II, 567 N.W.2d at 259-62. We held that Grzybek’s repeated neglect of client matters, failure to communicate with clients, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process— all of which occurred less than a year after he had been disciplined for similar misconduct — were “sufficient to merit disbarment.” Id. at 264-65. We also noted that Grzybek’s “misappropriation of $750 in client funds and his subsequent failure to make any effort to return the money[,] and his repeated failure to comply with court orders” are “separate grounds upon which he could be disbarred.” Id. at 265.

But in another analogous case, In re Brooks, we concluded that indefinite suspension was more appropriate than disbarment. 696 N.W.2d 84 (Minn.2005). Brooks neglected client matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to return client files and unearned fees, violated trust account rules, converted client money to her own use, and failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. Id. at 86-87. Brooks had previously been disciplined five times for violating trust account rules, representing both parties to a dissolution proceeding, failing to adequately communicate with clients, and failing to provide a complete file to a client. Id. at 87. The record in Brooks suggested that the death of her father may have caused some of her unprofessional conduct, but we found it difficult to consider this mitigation because of Brooks’ failure to provide sufficient information. Id. at 87-88. Nonetheless, despite recognizing that a continuing pattern of client neglect, trust account violations, and noncooperation with disciplinary investigations each generally warrant lengthy or indefinite suspensions by themselves, we determined — based on the lack of “complete information of the surrounding circumstances,” the small amount of the misappropriation ($200), and Brooks’ abandonment of her legal practice — that an indefinite suspension for a minimum of 2 years was the appropriate sanction. Id. at 88-89.

We agree with the Director that the present case is more analogous to Grzybek II than to Brooks. Although the misconduct in Brooks, like in Grzybek II, was similar to the present case, the record in Brooks suggested a mitigating factor about which we lacked complete information. Because of Rhodes’s complete failure to participate in the disciplinary process, the record in this case lacks any evidence of mitigating factors.

III.

In summary, Rhodes’s repeated neglect of client matters and noncommunication with clients, his financial misconduct involving $5,000 in client funds, his failure to obey the conditions of the prior disciplinary probation, and his repeated failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process each warrant severe discipline by themselves. When the weight of these violations are combined and considered in light of his prior professional discipline for similar misconduct and the complete lack of mitigating facts in the record of this case, we conclude that the appropriate sanction in this case is disbarment. Therefore, we hold that the appropriate discipline in this case is disbarment.

Accordingly, we order that:

1. Bradley C. Rhodes be disbarred from the practice of law, effective immediately;
2. Rhodes shall comply with the requirements of Rule 26 of the Minnesota Rules of Lawyers Professional Responsibility; and
3. Rhodes shall pay to the Director the sum of $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24 of the Minnesota Rules of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

So ordered.

ANDERSON, RUSSELL A., C.J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: MEIERHENRY, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    2007 SD 102
    David CHRISTENSEN, Petitioner and Appellant v. Douglas WEBER, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, Respondent and Appellee.
    No. 24299.
    Supreme Court of South Dakota.
    Considered on Briefs Aug. 27, 2007.
    Decided Oct. 10, 2007.
    Gregory T. Brewers of Strange, Farrell & Johnson, P.C., Sioux Falls, SD, for petitioner and appellant.
    Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General, Craig M. Eichstadt, Deputy Attorney General, Pierre, SD, for respondent and appel-lee.
   MEIERHENRY, Justice.

[¶ 1.] This action involves David Christensen’s writ of habeas corpus to this Court. Christensen’s motion for a certificate of probable cause was untimely before the circuit court. The circuit court granted the motion and certified seven issues for appeal, despite the motion’s untimeliness. Christensen then timely filed his notice of appeal to this Court. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[¶ 2.] On August 31, 2006, the circuit court signed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and its Order denying Christensen’s habeas petition. Notice of Entry was served on October 5, 2006. Christensen filed his motion for certificate of probable cause on October 16, 2006. The circuit court granted parts of the motion and certified seven issues for appeal on October 18, 2006. Christensen timely filed his notice of appeal to this Court on October 26, 2006.

[¶ 3.] Pursuant to SDCL 21-27-18.1, the last date Christensen could timely file his motion for certificate of probable cause to the circuit court was October 2, 2006.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

[¶ 4.] SDCL 21-27-18.1 governs this action and provides in relevant part:

A final judgment or order entered under this chapter may not be reviewed by the Supreme Court of this state on appeal unless the circuit judge who renders the judgment or a justice of the Supreme Court issues a certificate of probable cause that an appealable issue exists. A motion seeking issuance of a certificate of probable cause shall be filed within thirty days from the date the final judgment or order is entered ....

The plain language of this statute indicates that the deadline to file the motion for certificate of probable cause to the circuit court is thirty days from the actual entry of the order, not the notice of entry. This Court has previously interpreted this statute as jurisdictional. Hannon v. Weber, 2001 SD 146, ¶ 4, 688 N.W.2d 48, 49. Thus, the motion filed with the circuit court was fourteen days late and is defective.

[¶ 5.] Christensen requests that we apply the thirty-day limitations period from the time of notice of entry. Christensen asserts that neither his counsel nor State’s counsel knew the order had been signed and that the order was not returned to either of them. The certificate of service shows that notice of entry and copies of the order were sent to counsel on October 5, 2006, three days past the expiration of the limitations period. However, there is no notice of entry requirement in SDCL 21-27-18.1 as there is in SDCL ch. 15-26A. As we have previously stated, this Court cannot' read into the rule a notice requirement when one does not exist. Hannon, 2001 SD 146, ¶ 4, 638 N.W.2d at 49.

[¶ 6.] The State wishes to waive the timeliness issue and proceed on the merits in the interest of judicial economy. The State cites Loop v. Solem in support of this request. 898 N.W.2d 140 (S.D.1986). In Loop, this Court remanded for a new sentencing to allow for a new appeal period when Loop’s appeal was untimely and deprived this Court of jurisdiction under SDCL 23A-32-15. Id. at 142. However, there is a critical difference between the case before us and the situation in Loop. Loop was before this Court on á second habeas petition, timely filed, on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. This Court had jurisdiction when it remanded Loop back to the trial court for resentenc-ing in order to effectively reset the limitations period.

[¶ 7.] The State is correct in its assertion that there are two potential remedies available to Christensen that will allow this Court to consider his petition on the merits. After dismissal, Christensen may return to the circuit court and seek to vacate the order quashing the writ. As in Haf-ner, such action by the circuit court will allow Christensen thirty-days from entry of the new order quashing the writ to refile his motion for certificate of probable cause. Hafner v. Leapley, 520 N.W.2d 252, 253 (S.D.1994). If Christensen is denied this remedy he may return to this Court on a second habeas petition and seek the remedy provided in Loop. However, Christensen is not currently before this Court on a second habeas petition. Our interpretation of SDCL 21-27-18.1 as jurisdictional deprives this Court of the ability to waive the untimeliness of the motion or to proceed with the appeal on the merits.

[¶ 8.] The untimeliness of the motion before the circuit court deprived that court of jurisdiction to grant a certificate of probable cause. Hannon, 2001 SD 146, ¶ 8, 638 N.W.2d 48; Hafner, 520 N.W.2d at 253. Because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, this Court too lacks jurisdiction to consider the issues certified on appeal.

[¶ 9.] Dismissed.

[¶ 10.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, KONENKAMP, and ZINTER, Justices, concur.

      . The thirtieth day fell on Saturday, September 30, 2006. The motion was due Monday, October 2, 2006.

      .SDCL 21-27-18.1 is a Supreme Court Rule last amended July 1, 2002. 2002 SL Ch. 250, § 3. The last amendment to this rule extended the period in which a petitioner has to file a motion for a certificate of probable cause to this Court from fifteen days to twenty days upon refusal of the circuit judge to issue a certificate. The rule first appeared in 1983 and was modified in 1986 and 1989. At no time did the rule require notice of entry for the limitations periods to begin.

      . While we recognize the virtues of the State’s judicial economy argument, this cannot overcome lack of jurisdiction.

      . In Hafner, this Court held it was proper for the trial court to vacate its original order and issue a new order quashing the writ in order to restart the thirty-day statutory time limit. The circuit court held that it was impossible for Petitioner Hafner to file a motion for certificate of probable cause within thirty days of the filing of the entry of the order because neither State nor Petitioner was aware the judgment had been filed until after the expiration of the thirty days. Pursuant to SDCL 15 — 6—60(b) the court vacated its original order and issued a new order quashing the writ. Hafner was then timely notified by the State of entry of the order. Id. Upon reissuance of the certificate of probable cause, this Court considered Hafner’s appeal on the merits. 520 N.W.2d at 253.
      Further, this Court is aware that the one-year statute of limitation for SDCL 15 — 6—60(b)(1)— (3) may have expired. However, there is no one-year limitation period for SDCL 15 — 6— 60(b)(6), and as affirmed in Hafner, this is an appropriate ground upon which to vacate and reissue the order quashing the writ. Id.


author: HUITINK, P.J.

text:
    In the Interest of Z.H., Minor Child, A.H., Father, Appellant.
    No. 07-1048.
    Court of Appeals of Iowa.
    Sept. 6, 2007.

      Alexandra M. Nelissen of Nelissen & Juckette, P.C., for appellant father.
    Jesse Macro, Des Moines, for mother.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Corey McClure, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
    Kayla Stratton, Des Moines, for minor child.
    Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and BAKER, JJ.
   HUITINK, P.J.

I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings

The father in this appeal, Anthony, has a mild form of mental retardation. His former wife also has various mental health issues. Their five-year-old son, Zachary, has been identified as a child with special needs.

The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved in this case in 2004 when Zachary was two years old. At that time, Anthony and his wife were in the midst of divorce proceedings. Zachary was living with his father and maternal grandmother. The State filed a child in need of assistance (CINA) petition claiming Zachary was not receiving critical care. At the pre-conference hearing, the court inquired as to whether either parent was of Native American heritage. Neither parent claimed they had any Native American ancestry.

Zachary was adjudicated CINA on September 27, 2004. He was allowed to stay with his father, but DHS eventually began removal proceedings when it received numerous reports of neglect. For example, Zachary’s school reported that he often came to school in soiled diapers and with a ravenous hunger. Anthony told one service provider that he sometimes allowed Zachary to bathe himself so that Zachary could have privacy. During one in-home visit, Zachary began to play with an electrical socket. Anthony did nothing to stop Zachary, so the service provider had to intervene. The guardian ad litem who visited Zachary also found a cigarette lighter amongst his toys. On April 2, 2006, Zachary was removed and placed in foster care.

Anthony made limited progress towards reunification during the next twelve months. He received numerous services, but providers reported concerns over his ability to learn, practice, and retain essential parenting skills. He required regular reminders to perform basic parental functions, such as when to give Zachary his required medication. Anthony did not respond well to the' provider’s suggestions and was very defensive. One provider described him as belligerent. Anthony was also very uncooperative with his DHS caseworker and avoided communicating with him directly.

While he was uncooperative with services, Anthony did make significant strides in other areas of his life. He got a job at a local retail store and was promoted to a stock-supervisor. He also rented his own apartment and took steps to child-proof the home. Anthony eventually progressed to ninety-minute unsupervised visitations; however, he never progressed to the point where overnight visitations were appropriate.

The State filed the present petition to terminate Anthony’s parental rights on April 25, 2007. At the pre-termination conference, Anthony informed the court that he had Native American ancestry. After questioning Anthony, the court determined Anthony “could not clearly identify the names of relatives and/or provide enough definitive information so notices could even be sent.” The court gave Anthony seven days to provide written information about his Native American ancestry. Even though the court personally handed him information- on the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Anthony did not provide further information on his heritage within the seven-day time limit. By the time of the termination hearing, Anthony still had not provided the court with any further information about his ancestry. Based on the limited facts at hand, the court found the ICWA was inapplicable and continued on with the hearing. The court' ultimately terminated his parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(l)(d) (child CINA for neglect, circumstances continue despite receipt of services) and (f) (child four or older, child CINA, removed from home for twelve of last eighteen months, and child cannot be returned home) (2007).

On appeal, Anthony contends (1) DHS did not make reasonable efforts to find and approve an individual who could help Anthony provide support and supervision; (2) there was not clear and convincing evidence to terminate his parental rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(l)(d) or (f); (3) termination was not in Zachary’s best interests; and (4) the court failed to comply with the federal ICWA, and the Iowa ICWA.

II. Standard of Review

We review termination of parental rights de novo. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006). Grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. Id.

III. Merits

A. Reasonable Efforts

Throughout these proceedings, Anthony has tried to have someone else available to help him care for Zachary. On appeal, Anthony claims he “was successful in the past in raising his child with the assistance from a ‘live in’ ” and contends the State did not make “reasonable efforts”, to assist him “in finding and/or approving an individual who could provide support and supervision ... which could have aided in the reunification of the family.”

We disagree. First, there is no evidence Anthony ever successfully raised his child with the assistance of a “live in.” Zachary was adjudicated a child in need of assistance because Anthony could not provide for his care. The court allowed Zachary to remain with Anthony, and Anthony utilized both his mother and a “nanny” to help him care for Zachary. Even though he received this assistance, Zachary was removed from his care amidst numerous reports of neglect.

Second, we find the State’s efforts to assist Anthony were, under the circumstances, reasonable. As mentioned above, Anthony initially utilized a nanny to help him care for Zachary. When he inquired about hiring another nanny, DHS performed a background check and found this person acceptable. For unknown reasons, Anthony decided not to use this person. Anthony suggested another individual, but this person failed the DHS background check. Anthony suggested a third person, but DHS found this person unacceptable because she was not cooperative with the foster mother. We find no merit to Anthony’s argument that the State’s efforts were not reasonable simply because DHS rejected two of the three,people he suggested.

B. Statutory Grounds

Anthony contends the evidence does not support termination under sections 232.116(l)(d) or (f). Because we find statutory grounds for termination under section 232.116(l)(f), we need not address the arguments pertaining to the other statutory ground listed by the district court. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 64 (Iowa Ct.App.1999) (“When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we need only find grounds to terminate under one of the sections cited by the juvenile court to affirm.”).

Section 232.116(l)(f) provides that parental rights can be terminated if the State proves by clear and convincing evidence that the child is four years of age or older; the child has been adjudicated CINA; the child has been removed from the physical custody of his parents for at least twelve of the last eighteen months or for the last twelve consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days; and there is clear and convincing evidence that at the present time the child cannot be returned to the custody of the parents as provided in section 232.102. The first three elements were clearly proved and are not in dispute. Anthony claims there is insufficient evidence that Zachary could not be returned to his care.

Based on our de novo review of the record, we find there is clear and convincing evidence that Zachary cannot be returned to his care at the present time. The record reflects that Anthony has made only marginal improvement in his parenting skills. During one visit he gave Zachary a bubble bath even though he knew Zachary had eczema and was not supposed to have scented soaps or lotions on his skin. He also neglected to give Zachary his medicine at the appropriate time during his visits. In the opinion of both the care provider that supervises Anthony’s interactions with Zachary and the DHS caseworker, Anthony is not able to meet all of Zachary’s needs. Anthony performs most tasks when he is told to do so, but he has not shown the ability to perform necessary . tasks without specific direction. While he has progressed to short periods of unsupervised visitation, immediately followed by short periods of supervised visitation, we find there is sufficient proof that he could not provide for Zachary’s needs on a consistent, long-term basis. See In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1990) (“Parenting cannot be turned off and on like a spigot. It must be constant, responsible, and reliable.”). Hence, we find there is clear and convincing evidence that Zachary cannot be returned to his father’s care at this time.

C. Best Interests

Anthony also contends termination is not in Zachary’s best interests. He claims his strong bond with Zachary, when coupled with the fact that he is flourishing in his current foster home, clearly demon.strates that termination is not necessary at this time.

A strong bond between parent and child is a special circumstance which militates against termination when the statutory grounds have been satisfied. Iowa Code § 232.116(8). However, this is not an overriding consideration, but merely a factor to consider. In re N.F., 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa Ct.App.1998). In determining Zachary’s best interests, we look to both his long-term and immediate needs. J.E., 723 N.W.2d at 798.

We cannot ignore Anthony’s insufficient progress towards reunification. After more than two years of services, Anthony still does not have sufficient ■ parenting skills to care for -Zachary. The strong bond between Anthony and Zachary is simply not strong enough to forestall termination in this case. See id. at 801 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (“A child’s safety and the need for a permanent home are now the primary concerns when determining a child’s best interests.”). Similarly, we find it is not in Zachary’s best interests to delay termination simply because, as Anthony claims on appeal, Zachary is “not suffering” as a result of the current living situation and visitation schedule. Our legislature has established a twelve-month period for parents to demonstrate they can parent. Iowa Code § 232.116(l)(f); see In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1997). This time period has elapsed, and Anthony still does not have the ability to provide for Zachary’s daily needs. On the other hand, Zachary’s foster mother has experience with special needs children and she is willing to adopt him. To continue to keep him in a temporary or even a long-term foster home is not in his best interests, especially when he is adoptable. See C.K., 558 N.W.2d at 175. We agree with the juvenile court’s finding that termination of Anthony’s parental rights is clearly in Zachary’s best interests.

D. Indian Child Welfare Act

Anthony claims the court erred because it failed to comply with the terms of the federal ICWA and the Iowa ICWA.

The federal (ICWA) states:

In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the ... termination of parental rights ... shall notify the parent ... and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention. If the identity or location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot be determined, such notice shall be given to the Secretary in like manner, who shall have fifteen days after receipt to provide the requisite notice to the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe. No foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least ten days after receipt of notice by the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe or the Secretary: Provided, that the parent or Indian custodian or the tribe shall, upon request, be granted up to twenty additional days to prepare for such proceeding.

25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) (emphasis added). The Iowa ICWA contains similar notice provisions if the court has reason to know that an Indian child is the subject of the proceedings. See Iowa Code § 232B.5.

The operative question in this case is whether the court had reason to know Zachary was an Indian child. Iowa Code section 232B.5(3) provides, in pertinent part:

[t]he court ... shall be deemed to know or have reason to know that an Indian child is involved whenever any of the following circumstances exist:
a. A party to the proceeding or the court has been informed by any interested person ... that the child is or may be an Indian child.

Although our supreme court has indicated “it is better to err on the side of giving notice to the tribe and examining thoroughly whether the child is an Indian child,” In re R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 2005), common sense supports the district court’s decision not to go forward with the notice . provisions in' this case. The threshold of giving notice under the statute is low, but it is not without limits.

When addressed by other states, “reason to know” has been interpreted to mean “reason to believe.”

Federal Guidelines on ICWA-which urge a liberal construction of ICWA to further its preferences-have interpreted “reason to know” to mean “reason to believe.” In turn, California courts have adopted “reason to believe” as the relevant standard and have set a low threshold to trigger the notice requirements of the federal law. In other words, the Indian status of a dependent child need not be certain. A minimal showing that the child may be an Indian child is all that is required.

In re Joseph P., 140 Cal.App.4th 1524, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 595 (2006) (internal citations omitted). Where, however, there are merely vague assertions of possible Native American ancestry, there exists no “reason to believe” and such vague assertions are insufficient to trigger the notice requirements in either act. See, e.g., In re Guardianship of J.O., 327 N.J.Super. 304, 743 A.2d 341 (App.Div.2000); In re A.L., 623 N.W.2d 418 (N.D.2001); In re Arianna R.G., 259 Wis.2d 563, 657 N.W.2d 363 (2003).

Anthony’s vague statement about his Native American heritage was not injected into this proceeding until the eve of termination, after the statutory time period for termination had elapsed and after he had previously denied having a Native American ancestry. When the court questioned Anthony about his heritage, he was unable to clearly identify the names of relatives with Native American ancestry or identify any tribal affiliation. Recognizing Anthony’s mental health issues, the court gave Anthony and his attorney additional time to provide more specific information about his Native American ancestry. Both were unable to do so and neither asked the court for more time to gather this information.

We find the court did not err when it found the federal and Iowa ICWA inapplicable and went forward with the termination proceedings. The court correctly considered the unique circumstances surrounding Anthony’s claim of Native American ancestry when it decided whether Zachary could possibly be an Indian child. Anthony’s previous denial of his Native American ancestry, the timing of his new claim, and his inability to provide the court with any specific information as to why he now believed he was of Native American ancestry did not give the court reason to believe Zachary was an Indian child. Accordingly, the juvenile court was not required to delay termination proceedings in order to comply with the procedural notice requirements of either act.

IV. Conclusion

There is no doubt that Anthony loves Zachary. However, Anthony cannot adequately provide for his care. While the law demands a full measure of patience with a troubled parent attempting to remedy a lack of parenting skills, a child need not endlessly await for his parent to develop those skills, especially once the statutory period has elapsed. See In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613-14 (Iowa 1987). We find termination is appropriate in this case.

AFFIRMED.

      . Both parents were granted custody of Zachary, but Anthony was granted primary physical care.

      . The mother participated in the termination proceedings, but she is not a party to this appeal. She also did not claim Zachary was an Indian child.

      . The federal ICWA defines an Indian child as "any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.” 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4). The Iowa ICWA defines an Indian child as "an unmarried Indian person who is under eighteen years of age or a child who is under eighteen years of age that an Indian tribe identifies as a child of the tribe's community.” Iowa Code § 232B.3(6).


author: ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.

text:
    In re STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, In re the Marriage of Christina M. Deal, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Ryan S. DEAL, Respondent/Respondent.
    No. A07-278.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Nov. 1, 2007.

      Matthew P. Franzese, Traverse County Attorney’s Office, Alexandria, MN, for Petitioner.
    Donald B. Hawkins, Legal Services of NW Minnesota, Alexandria, MN, for Respondent Christina M. Deal.
    Robert V. Dalager, Fluegel, Helseth, McLaughlin, Anderson & Brutlag, Morris, MN, for Respondent Ryan S. Deal.
   OPINION

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.

Ryan S. Deal is charged with criminal sexual conduct and is also a party to a marriage dissolution proceeding. He sought to use civil discovery in the dissolution proceeding to depose the alleged victim and a potential witness in the ongoing criminal proceeding. The State of Minnesota petitioned to intervene in the dissolution proceeding to stay the civil depositions for the duration of the criminal trial. The district court found that the state had no interest in the dissolution proceeding and denied the state’s petition to intervene and to stay the depositions. The state then petitioned the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition to prevent the district court from allowing the depositions. The court of appeals denied the writ. Because we conclude that allowing civil discovery of information relevant to Ryan Deal’s pending criminal proceeding contravenes the policies behind the criminal discovery rules, we reverse.

Christina ■ M. Deal and Ryan S. Deal, a/k/a Ryan Deal, were married on September 15, 2000, and separated in March 2006. They have one minor child together, T.D., who is now 6 years old. Christina M. Deal has three minor children from a previous relationship: B.Q., C.Q., and E.Q. All four children resided with the parties during their, marriage. On August 15, 2006, the Traverse County Attorney filed charges against Ryan Deal for acts of criminal sexual conduct against B.Q., then 13 years old. Shortly thereafter, in October 2006, Christina M. Deal initiated a marriage dissolution proceeding against Ryan Deal in Traverse County. The same judge is presiding over both the dissolution proceeding and Ryan Deal’s criminal proceeding.

In the dissolution proceeding, both parties are seeking custody of T.D. Ryan Deal claims that he has been the primary caretaker of T.D., and was all four children’s sple caretaker when Christina M. -Deal spent time in jail and substance-abuse rehabilitation facilities. Ryan Deal sought to depose B.Q., C.Q., and Christina M. Deal in the dissolution proceeding to support his claim for custody of T.D., and he obtained subpoenas to compel the attendance of all three at the depositions.' Ryan Deal did not attempt to depose E.Q. because E.Q. moved out of state after the dissolution proceeding began. Ryan Deal asserts that the depositions of B.Q. and C.Q. are necessary for the resolution of the custody dispute because the children’s “observations, testimony and knowledge” concerning the factors considered in custody determinations are “unique and exceptional.”

Christina M. Deal filed a motion for a protective order under Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03, requesting that the district court quash B.Q.’s and C.Q.’s subpoenas to avoid subjecting them to oppression, embarrassment, and intimidation. Christina M. Deal emphasized the importance of protecting B.Q. because of the criminal charges against Ryan Deal for sexually assaulting B.Q. Alternatively, Christina M. Deal requested that the court seal the depositions or change the discovery method to a written deposition.

At the same time, the Traverse County Attorney, on behalf of the state, petitioned to permissively intervene in the marriage dissolution proceeding under Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.02, for the limited purpose of requesting that the district court prohibit Ryan Deal from taking all three depositions. The state argued that because all three' persons are potential witnesses at Ryan Deal’s criminal trial, permitting the depositions in the dissolution proceeding while the criminal trial is pending would allow Ryan Deal to impermissibly circumvent the criminal discovery rules. The district court, finding the state did not have an interest in the dissolution proceeding or “good cause” to stay civil discovery, denied the state’s request to intervene and to stay the depositions. But the court issued a limited protective order precluding Ryan Deal from being present at B.Q.’s and C.Q.’s depositions.

Christina M. Deal was deposed, but the depositions of B.Q. and C.Q. were postponed pending appellate review of the district court’s intervention and discovery orders. The state agreed to maintain the sequence of the dissolution and criminal proceedings until the outcome of the appeal, which would allow Ryan Deal to retain the opportunity to depose B.Q. and C.Q. in the civil proceeding before the criminal trial if the district court’s orders were affirmed. The state then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the court of appeals to prevent the district court from allowing the children’s depositions before the completion of Ryan Deal’s criminal trial. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that the information sought by Ryan Deal in the depositions was relevant to making a fully informed custody decision as to the best interests of T.D. Additionally, the court concluded that the interests of B.Q. were adequately protected because: (1) Ryan Deal was prohibited from being present at the depositions; (2) B.Q. would be represented by counsel at the depositions; and (3) the same judge is presiding over both proceedings and so is “in an excellent position to address deposition-related objections as well as any use of deposition-related evidence in the criminal proceeding.”

The state filed a petition for review, asking our court to decide whether a criminal defendant should be prevented from deposing potential criminal witnesses in a civil proceeding while a criminal trial is still pending.

I.

The state first argues that it is never appropriate to depose a child whose custody is at issue in a marriage dissolution proceeding because information concerning the child is normally obtained through custody evaluators, an in-camera interview, and a guardian ad litem. Custody determinations are governed substantively by Minnesota Statutes chapter 518 and procedurally by the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. See Minn.Stat. § 518.005, subd. 1 (2006). Under chapter 518, custody determinations are made based on the “best interests of the child,” where the court examines all relevant factors including: the wishes of the parents and the child; .the child’s primary caretaker; the relationship between the child and his or her parents, siblings, and other relevant persons; the child’s adjustment to home, school, and the community; the mental and physical health of the parents; and “the effect on the child, of the actions of an abuser.” Minn.Stat. § 518.17 (2006). Under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may take depositions concerning “¿ny matter, not privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense of any party.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.01-02. In a child custody proceeding, matters concerning the child’s best interests would be “relevant” to the parties’ 'claims and defenses, and therefore proper matters for depositions. Nevertheless, the civil rules are inapplicable to chapter 518 proceedings insofar as the rules “are inconsistent or in conflict with” chapter 518. Minn. R. Civ. P. 81.01(a); Minn. R. Civ. P. app. A.

Based on the extensive discovery procedures set out in chapter 518 that detail the manner in which information can be gained from a child when that child’s custody is being determined, the state’s argument may have merit with regard to deposing a child whose custody is at issue. But the children sought to be deposed in this case are not the children whose custody is at issue. B.Q. and C.Q. are “witnesses” with information possibly relevant to determining the best interests of their half-brother, T.D. We conclude that the state’s argument that it is never appropriate to depose a child whose custody is issue is not applicable to the facts of this case, and we therefore decline to address it any further.

II.

We next address the state’s argument that, under Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.02, it had the right to permissively intervene in the marriage dissolution proceeding for the limited purpose of requesting a stay of B.Q.’s and C.Q.’s depositions. The state argues that the depositions would jeopardize the integrity of Ryan Deal’s criminal trial by intimidating and humiliating B.Q., the alleged victim, and C.Q., a potential criminal witness, and by permitting Ryan Deal to gain access to information pertinent to his criminal trial that goes beyond the scope of criminal discovery.

Denials of requests for permissive intervention are generally not appealable. Norman v. Refsland, 383 N.W.2d 673, 675 (Minn.1986). But we review such denials when, as here, they are based on a finding that the applicant “had no protect-able interest in the litigation.” Thibault v. Bostrom, 270 Minn. 511, 512 n. 1, 134 N.W.2d 308, 310 n. 1 (1965) (holding that a denial of permissive intervention based on a finding that a party has no protectable interest in the litigation becomes a final appealable order as to that party). When reviewed, denial of a request to permissively intervene will be reversed only when “a clear abuse of discretion is shown.” SST, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 288 N.W.2d 225, 231 (Minn.1979).

Minnesota. Rule of Civil Procedure 24.02, the rule governing permissive intervention, states in part:

Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact. * ⅞ ⅜ In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.

We have said that “[i]t is our policy to encourage intervention wherever possible.” Norman, 383 N.W.2d at 678. In State v. Rud, we recognized the strong public policy against allowing a criminal defendant to circumvent the limited scope of discovery in the criminal rules. 359 N.W.2d 573, 578 (Minn.1984). As discussed below, this policy may require staying discovery in a civil proceeding to prevent a defendant in a related criminal proceeding from bypassing the limits on criminal discovery through the use of civil discovery. See Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir.1962). Moreover, in a civil proceeding there often is no party to assert the public’s interest in preventing the circumvention of the criminal discovery rules. As such, there appears to be a strong argument that the state should be permitted to intervene in a civil proceeding- in order to assert the public’s interest in a pending criminal proceeding.

A conclusion that intervention should be permitted is supported by federal law. See DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn.1997) (stating that we look to federal law for guidance when interpreting our own rules, particularly when the language in the federal and state rules is identical). When a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding involve overlapping evidentiary material, federal courts have consistently held that the “government [has] a discernible interest in intervening [in the civil proceeding] in order to prevent discovery in the civil [proceeding] from being used to circumvent the more limited scope of discovery in the criminal matter.” SEC v. Chestman, 861 F.2d 49, 50 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam). This interest in preventing a defendant from bypassing the limits on criminal discovery should be given “substantial weight” when ruling on a petition to intervene. Campbell, 307 F.2d at 487. Further, permitting intervention in a civil proceeding is particularly appropriate when the state wants to do so “for the limited purpose of moving to stay the case” during the pendency of the criminal trial. Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 269 F.Supp.2d 6, 8 (D.Conn.2002). Even in circumstances where courts have found the connection between the civil and criminal proceedings to be too weak to merit granting the state’s request to stay civil discovery, the state’s interest has still been deemed strong enough to . merit granting the request to permissively intervene. See United States v. Banco Cafetero Int’l, 107 F.R.D. 361, 365 (S.D.N.Y.1985).

We agree with the rationale in the federal cases concerning the state’s interest in intervening in a civil proceeding when a pending criminal proceeding involves overlapping evidentiary material. In order to protect the integrity of the criminal proceeding, the state must be given standing in the civil proceeding to assert that interest on behalf of the public. In this case, the district court denied the state’s request to intervene based in part on a finding that “there is no common question of law or fact relating to [the state’s] role as prosecutor in the criminal case and the issue of custody in the dissolution case.” But, based on Rud and the federal reasoning we now adopt, we conclude that the state does have an interest in the civil proceeding, and this interest should be given “substantial weight.”

The district court also found that allowing the state to intervene “would tend to delay or prejudice the adjudication of custody in the (albeit unlikely) event that the dissolution is adjudicated prior to the criminal trial.” Undue delay or prejudice is a proper ground to deny permissive intervention. Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.02. But because the court did not consider the state’s interest in the civil proceeding, the court could not accurately assess the weight of the possible harm from denying intervention against the possible delay or prejudice from granting the intervention. -

Based on the record before us, we conclude that the state should have been allowed to permissively • intervene in the marriage dissolution proceeding for the limited purpose of requesting a protective order staying B.Q.’s and C.Q.’s depositions. The state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the criminal proceeding is particularly weighty when compared to the possible prejudice the stay could cause in the dissolution proceeding. First, the district court admitted it was “unlikely” that the civil trial would occur before the criminal trial, thus minimizing the possibility of any prejudice to Ryan Deal or the dissolution proceeding. Second, the intervention request was for the limited purpose of requesting the discovery stay; therefore, the state would not be interfering in the remainder of the dissolution proceeding. Third, as discussed above, custody determinations are made largely through investigations by the court, the county, and the guardian ad litem, which could continue' without delay despite the intervention. Based oh the policy underlying limited criminal discovery, the state’s interests in protecting that policy, and the limited prejudice that would result from intervention, we conclude that the state’s substantial interests. weigh heavily in favor of granting its request to permissively intervene in the dissolution case. We therefore hold that the district court abused its discretion by denying the state’s request to permissively intervene in the civil dissolution proceeding for the limited purpose of requesting a stay of the civil depositions during the pendency of Ryan Deal’s criminal trial.

III.

We now turn to the state’s argument that the district court erred when it denied the state’s request to stay the civil depositions of B.Q. and C.Q. during Ryan Deal’s criminal trial. • A district court’s denial of a motion to stay discovery will not be reversed unless the court “abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. County of Hennepin, 450 N.W.2d 299, 306 (Minn.1990); see also Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859, 864 (Minn.1986) (holding that a reversal based on abuse of discretion requires “a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record”). In a civil proceeding, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense of any party.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02. But the court has broad discretion to fashion orders for “good cause” to protect the parties or witnesses from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense” in the discovery process. Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03; see also Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 506, 75 N.W.2d 762, 769 (1956). Nevertheless, “we have consistently construed the discovery rules in favor of broad discovery.” Larson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 314, 305 Minn. 358, 363, 233 N.W.2d 744, 747 (1975). As a result, “any limitation on the scope of discovery en-grafted on discovery procedures by interpretation must rest on sound policy grounds.” Anderson v. Florence, 288 Minn. 351, 357, 181 N.W.2d 873, 877 (1970) (emphasis added).

Limited discovery in criminal proceedings

In contrast to the civil rules, the criminal rules allow only limited discovery, with a handful of provisions meant “to give the defendant and prosecution as complete discovery as is possible under constitutional limitations.” Minn. R.Crim. P. 9, cmt. Unlike a party in a civil proceeding, a criminal defendant is not allowed to take depositions for the purpose of gathering information. State v. Mussehl, 408 N.W.2d 844, 846 (Minn.1987). Depositions are permitted in a criminal case “only upon a showing of reasonable probability that the witness will be unavailable — i.e., the rule allows depositions not for discovery purposes but to preserve testimony.” Rud, 359 N.W.2d at 578 n. 1; see also Minn. R.Crim. P. 21.01. The purpose behind this limiting rule is to prevent harassment of state’s witnesses and law enforcement officers, to reduce delays in the criminal process, and to avoid the possible “chilling effect on the willingness of witnesses to come forward.” 8 Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice— Criminal Law and Procedure § 16.18 (3d ed. 2001).

We have also stated that a criminal defendant should not be permitted to circumvent the limited scope of discovery in the criminal proceeding by attempting to use civil-like investigatory tools. Rud, 359 N.W.2d at 578. In Rud, a defendant who was charged with criminal sexual conduct attempted to call the child victim to testify at the probable cause hearing. Id. at 575. We held that calling the child to testify was not permitted, as the probable cause hearing “should not be used as a substitute for disclosure and discovery.” Id. at 578. We went on to state that “ - the legitimate concern of the defendant to know the- case against him before trial should be. dealt with by other means.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 450, 239 N.W.2d 892, 898 (1976)). These “other means” are the limited discovery methods provided for in the criminal rules, which we emphasized do not provide for discovery depositions. Id. at n. 1; Mussehl, 408 N.W.2d at 846.

While we have stated our policy against allowing criminal defendants to bypass criminal rules that limit the discovery methods available to them, we have not yet addressed the implications of this policy on civil discovery when pending civil and criminal proceedings involve overlapping evidentiary material. That is the question presented here. Therefore, we must now determine the application of our limitation on criminal discovery to a criminal defendant’s use of civil discovery when the defendant’s pending civil and criminal proceedings involve overlapping evidentiary material.

The effect of a pending criminal trial on related civil discovery

Because we have not yet determined, the applicability of the policy set forth in Rud to a civil proceeding that is related to a pending criminal proceeding, we look to federal case law for guidance, particularly because our rules on staying civil discovery “mirror” the federal rules. Rud, 359 N.W.2d at 578 n. 1; see DLH, 566 N.W.2d at 69 (stating that the federal rules are instructive on interpreting the Minnesota rules, especially when “the relevant' language of the state and federal rules is identical”). Federal courts have consistently held that there is “good cause” to issue a protective order staying civil discovery when a related criminal proceeding is pending in order to prevent the defendant’s use of broad civil discovery to sidestep the much more limited discovery available in the criminal proceeding. See e.g., Peden v. United States, 206 Ct.Cl. 329, 512,F.2d 1099, 1103 (1975) (“[I]t has long been a practice to ‘freeze’ civil proceedings when a criminal prosecution involving the same facts is warming up or under way.”). The reasoning supporting such a stay is based on the distinctly different policies and objectives that support the civil and criminal rules. Campbell, 307 F.2d at 487. While broad discovery is encouraged in civil proceedings, the federal courts identify three policy considerations “peculiar’ to criminal law” that justify the narrow scope of discovery in criminal proceedings:

First, there has been a fear, that broad disclosure of the essentials of the prosecution’s case would result in perjury and manufactured evidence. Second, it is supposed that revealing the identity of confidential government informants would create the opportunity for intimidation of prospective witnesses and would discourage the giving of information to the government. Finally, it is argued that since the self-incrimination privilege would effectively block any attempts to discover from the defendant, he would retain the opportunity to surprise the prosecution whereas the state would be unable to obtain additional facts. This procedural advantage over the prosecution is thought to be undesirable in light of the defendant’s existing advantages. The validity of each of these objections must be appraised in each of the situations in which the defendant may seek discovery and must be weighed against the importance to the defendant of the disclosure.

Id. (quoting Developments in the Law-Discovery, 74 Harv. L.Rev. 940, 1052 (1961)).

Because of the policies behind the narrower scope of criminal discovery, federal courts have held that “[a] litigant should not be allowed to make use of the liberal discovery procedures applicable to a civil suit as a dodge to avoid the restrictions on criminal discovery and thereby obtain documents he would not otherwise be entitled to for the use in his criminal trial.” Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. v. Pharaon, 140 F.R.D. 634, 639 (S.D.N.Y.1991); see also Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. United States, 820 F.2d 1198, 1203 (Fed.Cir.1987) (concluding that the opportunity to use civil discovery may present “an irresistible temptation to use that discovery to one’s advantage in the criminal case”). To prevent the circumvention of the criminal discovery rules through a civil proceeding, “judicial discretion and procedural flexibility should be utilized to prevent the rules and policies applicable to one suit from doing violence to those pertaining to the other.” Pharaon, 140 F.R.D. at 639. One federal court has held that a failure to recognize the effect of a pending criminal proceeding on the civil proceeding is a “fatal defect” in a district court’s holding. Campbell, 307 F.2d at 483.

Our review of federal case law requiring courts to consider the effect of a criminal trial on discovery in a pending civil proceeding when the matters share overlapping evidentiary material leads us to the conclusion that the rationale behind the federal law is consistent with our holding in Rud and the policies behind our criminal discovery rules. Prohibiting a defendant from taking a discovery deposition in a criminal proceeding, only to allow him to take the same investigatory deposition through a related civil proceeding, would contravene the aforementioned policies behind the criminal discovery rules. Maintaining the integrity of a criminal proceeding by preventing circumvention of the criminal.discovery rules is a “sound policy ground[ ]” that justifies narrowing the generally broad civil discovery rules. See Anderson, 288 Minn. at 357, 181 N.W.2d at 877. This policy can provide “good cause” to issue a protective order staying civil discovery. Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03. As a result, we conclude that a court must consider the possible damaging effect of allowing civil discovery when such discovery includes information relevant to a pending criminal proceeding. Further, a court’s failure to consider this issue may be considered a “fatal defect” in the court’s ruling.

Balancing test to be applied when determining whether a civil discovery stay is appropriate pending the resolution of a related criminal trial

To determine whether a stay is appropriate in a particular case, we conclude that a district court should balance the interests of “litigants, nonparties, the public, and the court itself.” Ganim, 269 F.Supp.2d at 8. We also conclude that “[b]alancing these interests is a situation-specific task, and an inquiring court must take a careful look at the idiosyncratic circumstances of the case before it.” Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Int'l, Inc., 385 F.3d 72, 78 (1st Cir.2004) (emphasis added). When making its determinations, a court should consider factors such as: (1) the extent to which the evidentiary material in the civil and criminal cases overlap; (2) the status of the criminal proceeding; (3) the interests of any parties in staying the civil proceeding; (4) the prejudice to any parties from staying the civil proceeding (4) the interests of persons that are not parties to the litigation; (5) court convenience; and (6) the public interest in the pending civil and criminal actions. Id.; Maloney v. Gordon, 328 F.Supp.2d 508, 511 (D.Del.2004); Ganim, 269 F.Supp.2d at 8.

We emphasize the strong government and public interest in the integrity of a criminal proceeding that must be part of this balancing test — integrity that may be compromised by a defendant’s access to the broad scope of civil discovery. See Campbell, 307 F.2d at 487; Maloney, 328 F.Supp.2d at 513. The more the issues overlap in the civil and criminal proceedings, the more likely that allowing civil discovery will jeopardize the integrity of the criminal proceeding. See Afro-Lecon, 820 F.2d at 1202-3; see also Maloney, 328 F.Supp.2d at 511. Further, because court convenience deserves “substantial weight,” Microfinancial, 385 F.3d at 78, “[t]he potential dispositive or clarifying effect of the resolution of [the] criminal case” on the civil proceeding also may weigh in favor of a stay. Audrey Stramos, Parallel Proceedings in Securities Enforcement: Procedural and Constitutional Issues, 741 PLT/Corp 239, 246 (1991) (citing Milton Pollack, Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings, 129 F.R.D. 201, 203 (1989)). Finally, the length of time of the stay is a factor in considering the prejudice to the party opposing the stay. Risk of prejudice is lessened after the criminal indictment because of the requirement of a speedy trial, which limits the duration of the stay. Pollack, supra at 203. A court should be flexible when a stay of civil discovery is requested under these circumstances, and should use its discretion to protect the strong public interest in the integrity of the criminal proceedings while also examining the possible countervailing interests that may be present in both the civil and criminal proceedings.

Did the district court err by failing to apply the balancing test when determining whether to stay civil discovery?

In this case, the district court found that there was no common question of law or fact relating to the state’s role as prosecutor in the criminal proceeding and the marriage dissolution. Further, the court concluded that Ryan Deal’s potential motivation to use the civil depositions to access information beyond the scope of criminal discovery was not good cause to stay the depositions. But the court made its findings without the benefit and guidance of this opinion and therefore did not consider the various interests that should be balanced when determining whether a stay should be granted. We therefore conclude that the district court erred when it did not apply a balancing test to determine whether to stay the depositions of B.Q. and C.Q.

Application of the balancing test to the facts of this case

Having concluded that the district court erred by not applying a balancing test when determining whether. a discovery stay was appropriate, we now consider whether, by applying the balancing test, as set forth above, to the facts of this case, the record favors a stay of B.Q.’s and C.Q.’s depositions. At the outset, the policy interest in protecting the integrity of the criminal proceeding is particularly strong in this case for numerous reasons. First, Ryan Deal appears to admit that he intends to use the civil discovery depositions to gain information relevant to his criminal trial. Second, a determination of whether Ryan Deal, sexually assaulted B.Q. is relevant to what custody award is in the best interests of T.D. The clarifying effect of Ryan Deal’s criminal case on the custody proceeding therefore weighs in favor of á stay, especially because a conviction may well have a dispositive effect.

Additionally, because B.Q. is a minor and an alleged victim of sexual assault by Ryan Deal, the risk of intimidating or harassing her is particularly high. Both the state and the public have an interest in preventing such harassment and intimidation. Even if Ryan Deal is not present during the deposition, questioning B.Q. about the abuse — and any other topics that may lead to discoverable evidence — could place B.Q. in severe distress. B.Q.’s possible distress also places the criminal trial in jeopardy because “[i]n the investigation and prosecution of most sexual assault cases, the role of the victim is much more important than in other crimes since the victim is usually the sole witness to the crime.” First Response, supra note 13.

We conclude that the risk of compromising the testimony of B.Q. is substantial. A child victim of abuse is often reluctant to testify against the family member who abused her; “she may be unable to give consistent, spontaneous, and detailed reports of her sexual abuse”; she is often frightened, anxious, and ambivalent about’ testifying against the once trusted adult who abused her; and she is particularly vulnerable during cross-examination. Ser-rato, supra note 11, at 159. Because B.Q.’s testimony will likely be crucial in Ryan Deal’s criminal trial, and because victims like B.Q. are often fragile and frequently have trouble testifying at trial, special care should be taken to ensure that any existing difficulties are not compounded by subjecting victims like B.Q. to a civil deposition before the criminal trial.

We also note that while C.Q. is not an alleged victim, the state’s other interests weigh in favor of staying his deposition. The chance of jeopardizing the criminal trial by allowing C.Q.’s deposition remains high because C.Q. lived in the home with B.Q. where the alleged criminal sexual conduct was said to have occurred; thus, C.Q. likely has information relevant to the criminal charges against Ryan Deal. We also note that Ryan Deal asserts that he was the caretaker of all four children when Christina M. Deal was incarcerated or in rehabilitative facilities. The criminal charges allege that some of the incidents of criminal sexual conduct occurred when Christina M. Deal was out of the home due to incarceration or rehabilitation. Therefore, the overlap of the relevant time periods between .the civil and criminal proceedings makes C.Q.’s testimony concerning Ryan Deal’s caretaking likely relevant to the criminal proceeding.

Despite the strong interests of the state, the public, B.Q., C.Q., and the court that weigh in favor of a stay, there is also a strong interest in promptly determining what custody will serve the best interests of T.D. We recognize that both B.Q. and C.Q. may have information that is relevant to accurately determining what custody award will serve T.D.’s best interests. While we give substantial weight to the need for custody determinations to be prompt and accurate, numerous factors in this case mitigate the potential harm from stáying the discovery depositions. Ryan Deal’s criminal trial is set in the near future so the stay would be limited in duration, thus minimizing the chance of harm to T.D. or prejudice to Ryan Deal. Also, as discussed above, all other investigations in the custody proceedings — by the court, the county, and the guardian ad litem — could continue during the stay and provide the information that is needed for the court to conduct the best interests analysis. A temporary custody order is also an option during the pendency of the dissolution proceeding and can be modified during the proceedings, Minn.Stat. § 518.131 (2006), so the parties can petition the court for temporary custody or visitation of T.D. pending the final disposition of the dissolution proceeding.

Having- balanced the various interests outlined abové, particularly the strong policy of preventing circumvention of the criminal discovery rules, we conclude that the integrity of Ryan Deal’s criminal proceeding would be jeopardized if the depositions of B.Q. and C.Q. were permitted to occur before the completion of Deal’s upcoming criminal trial. Here, the potential harm to Ryan Deal and T.D. is limited but the prejudice to the integrity of the criminal proceeding is considerable. Therefore, we conclude that application of the balancing test weighs heavily in favor of a stay until the completion of the criminal trial. Accordingly, we hold that the district court abused its discretion when it denied the state’s request to stay the depositions of B.Q. and C.Q.

IV.

We have held that the district court erred when it denied that state’s petition to intervene in the dissolution action for the limited purpose of requesting a stay of the depositions during the pen-dency of Ryan Deal’s criminal trial. We have also held that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to apply the balancing test to determine whether a stay was appropriate in this case. Finally, we held that because the balancing test weighs heavily in favor of staying the depositions of B.Q. and C.Q., the district court abused its discretion when it denied the state’s request to stay the depositions during the pendency of Ryan Deal’s criminal trial. We must now determine whether issuing a writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy for the district court’s error in denying the state’s request to stay the depositions of B.Q. and C.Q. When determining whether to grant a writ, we must adhere to the law governing the subject of the writ. In re Giblin, 304 Minn. 510, 516 n. 3, 232 N.W.2d 214, 218 n. 3 (1975). Denials of requests to stay discovery are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Montgomery Ward, 450 N.W.2d at 305-06.

A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that may be issued if:

(1) an inferior court or tribunal [is] about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power [is] unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of such power [will] result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy.

Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d at 208 (citations omitted). A writ is a preventative, not a corrective, measure, and if1 normal appeal procedures could rectify any errors, a writ is generally not appropriate. Giblin, 232 N.W.2d at 218 n. 4. We have issued writs for numerous reasons, including: (1) when, as the court of appeals recognized, “the court has ordered the production of information clearly not discoverable and there is no adequate remedy at law;” (2) “to prevent abuse of discretion where there is no other adequate remedy at law[;]” (3) when “[the writ] will settle a rule of practice affecting all litigants,” Wasmund v. Nunamaker, 277 Minn. 52, 55, 151 N.W.2d 577, 579 (1967); and (4) “to correct an error of law in the lower court where no other adequate remedy is available to the petitioner and enforcement of the trial court’s order would do irreparable harm,” State v. Turner, 550 N.W.2d 622, 626 (Minn.1996).

In Schumacher, we held that when the district court denied an intervening media member’s request to quash the district court’s order sealing files in a' wrongful death action, the intervener properly challenged the pre-trial order by seeking a writ of prohibition from the court of appeals. 392 N.W.2d at 207. Holding that the district court erred when it sealed the wrongful death files, we granted the writ because we concluded that “time is of the essence” in most cases involving access to court files, making an appeal an inadequate remedy and the issuance of a writ necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the intervener. Id. at 208. Here, we previously concluded that the state should have been permitted to intervene in the dissolution proceeding. Hence, as in Schumacher, a writ was properly sought by the state to challenge the .district court’s pre-trial discovery order denying the state’s request to stay the depositions. Further, absent a stay of the- civil depositions before Ryan Deal’s criminal trial, an appeal would -provide no remedy to the state because the harm — allowing Ryan Deal to compromise the integrity of the criminal trial by going beyond the scope of criminal discovery — would already have occurred-. We therefore conclude that, like in cases involving access to court files, “time is of the essence” when the state requests to stay discovery in a civil proceeding that involves. overlapping eviden-tiary material with a pending criminal proceeding. Further, a district court’s erroneous ruling on the state’s request to stay discovery may do irreparable harm to the state and the criminal trial if the ruling is left to be reviewed through normal appellate procedures.

Because we hold that the district court abused its discretion when it did not apply a balancing test before denying the state’s request to stay civil discovery, and because we conclude that the state has no adequate remedy at law, we .hold that the court of appeals erred when it denied the state’s request for a writ of prohibition. Therefore, we grant the state’s request for a writ preventing the district court from allowing Ryan Deal to depose B.Q. and C.Q. during the pendency of Ryan Deal’s criminal trial.

Reversed.

      . While chapter 518 does not expressly prohibit a party from deposing a child in a custody proceeding, it provides extensive procedures for determining the best interests of the child whose custody is at issue. See Minn. Stat. § 518.166 (2006) (permitting the court to "interview the child in chambers to ascertain the child's reasonable preference as to custodian”); Minn.Stat. § 518.165, subd. 2a (2006) (providing for the appointment of a guardian ad litem who is responsible for conducting an independent investigation of the child, advocating for the child’s best interests, and presenting written reports that include conclusions and recommendations for the child); Minn.Stat. § 518.167 (2006) (providing that the court may order an investigation and report from the county or court services, which must be made available to the parties and may be received into evidence at the hearing). The only direct questioning of a child whose custody is at issue appears to be at a discretionary in-camera interview by the court to determine the child’s custodial preference. See Minn.Stat. § 518.166. If such an interview is conducted, the court must allow the parties’ counsel to be present and to ask the child "reasonable questions.” Id.

      . The federal rule and Minnesota's rule for permissive intervention are nearly identical, except that the federal rule has an additional ground for intervention "when a statute of the United States confers a conditional right to intervene.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b); see Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.02.

      . See Pfizer Ireland Pharms. v. Albers Med., Inc., 225 F.R.D. 591, 592 (W.D.Mo.2004); Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 269 F.Supp.2d 6, 10 (D.Conn.2002); United States v. Banco Cafetero Int’l, 107 F.R.D. 361, 364 (S.D.N.Y.1985); SEC v. United States Realty & Improvement, 310 U.S. 434, 458-60, 60 S.Ct. 1044, 84 L.Ed. 1293 (1940).

      . The state did not petition to intervene as of right in the dissolution proceeding under Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01. There is a four-part test for intervention as of right. Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d 197, 207 (Minn.1986) (articulating the requirements for intervention as of right under Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01). Because the state did not argue that it had the right to intervene in the dissolution proceeding, we are not addressing this issue. Nevertheless, we note that there is federal and state case law that supports the state’s right to intervene in similar cases. See Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d at 207; see also SEC v. Nacchio, No. Civ. A05CV00480MSKCBS, 2005 WL 1799372, at *3 (D.Colo. July 28, 2005); SEC v. Mutuals.com, Inc., No. Civ.A.3:03-CV-2912-D, 2004 WL 1629929, at *2 (N.D.Tex. July 20, 2004) (holding that it was unnecessary to address permissive intervention because the government could intervene as of right).
      We also note that holding that a third party may intervene permissively or as of right in a civil action to request a stay of civil discovery during a criminal trial that involves the same evidentiary material does not automatically mean that granting a stay of civil discovery is warranted in a particular case. The criteria for intervention and for a protective order staying discovery are distinct and should be kept as such. Compare Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01-.02 with Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03.

      . The comment to Minn. R.Crim. P. 9, which is the general discovery rule for criminal proceedings, states:
      Rule 9, with Rules 7.01, 19.04, subd. 6(1) (Rasmussen notice of evidence obtained from the defendant and of identification procedures), Rules 7.02, 19.04, subd. 6(2) (Spreigl notice of additional offenses to be offered at trial), and Rule 18.05, subds. 1 and 2 (recorded testimony of grand jury witnesses), provide a comprehensive method of discovery by the prosecution (Rule 9.01) and defendant (Rule 9.02). The rules are intended to give the defendant and prosecution as complete discovery as is possible under constitutional limitations.

      . The discovery provisions found in Minn. R. , Civ. P. 26 are adapted from Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, and "the authorities construing the federal rule should be given full weight to the extent applicable." Minn. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory comm. cmt. — 2000 amendments (emphasis added). The criminal rules are also modeled after the federal rules, and, specifically, Minn. R.Crim. P. 21.01, governing the limited taking of depositions in a criminal trial, is "adapted from” Fed.R.Crim.P. 15., see Minn. RCrim. P. 21, cmt., and “mirror[s]" the federal rule, Rud, 359 N.W.2d at 578 n. 1.

      . As stated by one court:
      There is a clearcut distinction between private interests in civil litigation and the public interest in a criminal prosecution, between a civil trial and a criminal trial, and between the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. But these distinctions do not mean that a civil action and a criminal action involving the same parties and some of the same issues are so unrelated that in determining good cause for discovery in the civil suit, a determination that requires the weighing of effects, the trial judge in the civil proceeding should ignore the effect discovery would have on a criminal proceeding that is pending or just about to be brought. The very fact that there is clear distinction between civil and criminal actions requires a government policy determination of priority: which case should be tried first. Administrative policy gives priority to the public interest in law enforcement. This seems so necessary and wise that a trial judge should give substantial weight to it in balancing the policy against the right of a civil litigant to a reasonably prompt determination of his civil claims or liabilities.

        Campbell, 307 F.2d at 487.

      . Some courts have gone so far as to stay the entire civil proceeding instead of just discovery, concluding that “ ‘deferrable civil proceedings constitute improper interference with the criminal proceedings if they churn over the same evidentiary material.’ ” Afro-Lecon, 820 F.2d at 1204 (quoting Peden, 512 F.2d at 1103).

      . Ryan Deal states that the motion to stay discovery was requested with the "intent and purpose of precluding [Ryan Deal] the opportunity to hear the allegations and testimony- of [Christina Deal’s] minor child under oath, in open Court, subject to cross examination, in advance of the criminal jury trial, so that the Traverse County Attorney can conduct the trial by 'surprise’. If the dissolution trial is postponed, I will be unable to have the benefit of what is otherwise my right granted by this dissolution court, that is to take the testimony of [Christina Deal's] minor daughter/alleged victim before the criminal trial is held” (emphasis added). Ryan Deal also made clear to the court that he intended to question both children about the alleged sexual abuse.

      . One factor in the best interests analysis used to determine child custody is "the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser.” Minn.Stat. § 518.17 (2006).

      . Child victims of sexual abuse suffer from a range of psychological problems that include “depression, anxiety, guilt, fear, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal, and acting out.” American Psychological Association, Understanding Child Sexual Abuse: Education, Prevention, and Recovery, http://www.apa.org/releases/ sexabuse/effects.html; Veronica Serrato, note, Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions: A Spectrum of Uses, 68 B.U. L.Rev. 155, 159 (1988).

      . This court has made clear that the state has a "compelling interest” in " 'safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor [victim of a sex crime].’ ” State v. McRae, 494 N.W.2d 252, 258 (Minn.1992) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596, 607-08, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982)).

      . “Whereas most crime victims find it difficult to discuss their victimization, sexual assault victims find it especially paiqful.” First Response to Victims of Crime, Department of Justice, (2001), http://www.ojp.gov/ovc/ publications/infores/firstrep/2001/vicsexaslt. html (hereinafter First Response).