Office of the Guardian ad Litem v. H.M., 2007 UT 21

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court reviewed an appeal from a juvenile court permanency order returning most of eleven children to their mother's custody. The court held that the order was final and appealable, that the juvenile court applied the required child-safety standard, and that exclusion of the Guardian ad Litem's expert testimony under the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure was erroneous but harmless. The permanency order was affirmed.

Holdings

1. A permanency order that terminates DCFS custody, ends reunification services, and returns a minor to a parent's custody is final and appealable, even when the juvenile court retains jurisdiction and orders continuing protective services or counseling.
2. At a permanency hearing, the juvenile court must determine whether the minor may safely be returned to the parent's custody under Utah Code section 78-3a-312(2)(a); substantial compliance with the service plan is not a substitute for the safety determination.
3. Utah Rule of Juvenile Procedure 20A(h)(1), which governs expert disclosure for adjudication trials or hearings, does not apply to permanency hearings. Permanency hearings are disposition hearings governed by Rule 46, and the civil-procedure expert-discovery provisions in Rules 26 and 37 do not apply.
4. The juvenile court erred by treating Rule 20A(h)(1) as mandating exclusion of the GAL's expert testimony, but the error was harmless because the proffered testimony was cumulative and did not violate due process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the permanency order terminating DCFS custody and returning children to a parent was final and appealable.
2. Whether the juvenile court applied the statutory safety standard in determining that the children could be returned to Mother's custody.
3. Whether the juvenile court erred by applying Utah Rule of Juvenile Procedure 20A(h)(1), rather than Rule 46, to exclude the GAL's expert witness from the permanency hearing.
4. Whether exclusion of the expert testimony was harmful error or violated the children's due process rights.

Disposition

affirmed