Summary
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s order terminating J.M.B.’s guardianship and custody of J.B. The court held that the appeal was not moot despite the child’s finalized adoption, that the juvenile court had concurrent jurisdiction to modify prior district court custody orders, and that J.M.B. waived her statutory right to counsel. The court declined to address J.M.B.’s in loco parentis and statutory parental-rights arguments because they were not preserved.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal was moot because J.B.'s adoption had been finalized more than one year earlier.
- Whether the juvenile court had statutory authority to modify or vacate the district court's custody and guardianship orders under its concurrent jurisdiction.
- Whether J.M.B. waived her statutory right to counsel by knowingly choosing to proceed pro se.
- Whether J.M.B. could assert parental rights under the in loco parentis doctrine or the Custody and Visitation for Persons Other than Parents Act despite failing to preserve those arguments below.
Holdings
- The appeal was not moot because J.M.B.'s juvenile court action constituted a timely collateral challenge to the adoption under Utah Code section 78B-6-133(7)(d).
- The juvenile court had authority to modify the district court's custody and guardianship orders because the child was within the juvenile court's jurisdiction and the modification was necessary to protect the child's safety and welfare.
- J.M.B. waived her statutory right to counsel by knowingly and voluntarily choosing to proceed pro se.
- The court declined to consider J.M.B.'s arguments that she had parental rights under in loco parentis or Utah Code section 30-5a-103 because those arguments were not preserved in the juvenile court.
Key quotations
“We accordingly recognized the viability of an appeal from a decision in such an action so long as the underlying action “was brought within the time limitations described in Subsections (7)(a) and (b).”” (¶ 22)
“The juvenile court may, by order, change the custody, . . . support, parent-time, and visitation rights previously ordered in the district court as necessary to implement the order of the juvenile court for the safety and welfare of the child.” (¶ 26)
“To preserve an issue a party must give the lower court a meaningful opportunity to rule in its favor.” (¶ 37)
Factual background
J.B. was the biological child of J.J., and J.M.B. was initially awarded joint and later sole physical custody while retaining joint legal custody. In October 2015, while J.M.B. and J.B. were at a McDonald's in Utah, a third party observed J.B. seeking food while wearing a visibly soiled diaper and dirty clothing and reported suspected neglect to police. J.M.B. was arrested on an outstanding warrant, J.B. was placed in the temporary custody of the Division of Child and Family Services, and the juvenile court later found neglect and terminated J.M.B.'s guardianship and custody.
Procedural history
J.M.B. became J.B.'s legal guardian and was awarded custody after previously receiving custody orders from the district court. Following a neglect report, the juvenile court obtained concurrent jurisdiction, terminated J.M.B.'s guardianship and custody, and determined that reunification services were inappropriate. J.M.B. appealed, and the Guardian ad Litem moved to dismiss the appeal as moot because J.B.'s adoption had been finalized.