issue upon the Court being informed that a reputable sexual offender treatment therapist recommends contact to recommence. Earl II complains about this aspect of the court’s order, claiming that it violates his Fifth Amendment right .against self-incrimination. He asserts that any sexual offender treatment program will require an admission of,sexual abuse. Earl II contends that in order to obtain the recommendation needed to see his children, he will have to incriminate himself. .. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const, amend. V. This privilege applies not just to criminal trials, but also allows a person “ ‘not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil Minn.1987) (<HOLDING>); State v. Fuller, 276 Mont. 155, 915 P.2d 809,
holding court could not require parents to divulge incriminating information but court could consider parents failure to undergo meaningful therapy in deciding whether parents could regain their children recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children recognizing that because parents have a constitutional right to direct their childrens education organization has standing to bring claim on behalf of parents holding that courts may require one or both parents to pay for a courtappointed attorney for their children holding right to family integrity is nebulous in nature and not sufficiently particularized for government officials to know that their conduct in removing children from parents custody without court order violated parents substantive rights