Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this termination of parental rights action the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals remanding this case to the juvenile court so that it may reexamine the termination petition in light of the clarified standard, holding that the court of appeals did not misinterpret the Termination of Parental Rights Act, Utah Code 78A-6-506, -507.To resolve Mother's petition to terminate the parental rights of Father the juvenile court followed the statutory framework the legislature created by finding multiple grounds for termination and concluding that terminating Father's parental rights was in the children's best interest. The juvenile court then addressed a legislative mandate that termination occur only when it is "strictly necessary" to terminate parental rights. See Utah Code 78A-6-507(1). On appeal, Father argued that the juvenile court incorrectly interpreted the termination statute. The court of appeals clarified the analysis the juvenile court should have employed and remanded for reexamination under the clarified analysis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) did not err in disavowing the almost automatically language in its case law; (2) correctly held that the Act requires that termination be strictly necessary for the best interests of the child; and (3) properly remanded the cause to the juvenile court. View "In re B.T.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the Office of Public Guardian's (OPG) petition for extraordinary relief after the juvenile court appointed OPG as guardian ad litem for Mother in a parental rights proceeding, holding that the juvenile court went beyond the bounds of its discretion by appointing OPG in this matter.Before appointing OPG as Mother's guardian ad litem, the juvenile court noted that, under its reading of the Utah Code, OPG could petition or agree to represent Mother in termination proceedings. The juvenile court then ordered OPG to "represent" mother in the proceedings. OPG petitioned for extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding (1) OPG can seek extraordinary relief because it lacked a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to address its appointment; (2) the juvenile court has inherent authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for an adult; but (3) the juvenile court exceeded its discretion by appointing the OPG as guardian ad litem in this case. View "In re G.J.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal challenging the district court's determination that he did not have standing to establish paternity of his biological daughter under the Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA), holding that Plaintiff did not preserve his arguments that the UUPA is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution.During her marriage with Husband Mother engaged in a relationship with Plaintiff during which a child was conceived and born. After Mother and Husband began divorce proceedings Plaintiff intervened in the proceedings, alleging that he was the biological father of the child. The district court concluded that Plaintiff lacked standing to assert his parentage claim and further concluded that Plaintiff had abandoned his paternity claim entirely. The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal, holding Plaintiff waived any claim to challenge Husband's presumed paternity because he did not challenge the district court's finding that he abandoned his paternity claim. View "Hinkle v. Jacobsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's action seeking to establish his paternity of a child born to Mother, who was married to Husband, holding that section 78B-15-602 of the Utah Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA), Utah Code 78B-15-101 to -902, grants standing to Plaintiff and that subsection 607(1) does not revoke that standing when the child has a presumed father.During Mother's relationship with Plaintiff they conceived a child. Mother and Husband remained married. Plaintiff filed a petition in the district court to challenge Husband's presumed paternity and assert his own parentage. Mother filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that subsection 78B-15-607(1) of the UUPA denied Plaintiff standing. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 78B-15-602 grants standing to alleged fathers seeking to adjudicate their paternity, and nothing in subsection 607(1) revokes that standing. View "Castro v. Lemus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition to adjudicate his paternity of a child he conceived with Mother while she was married to Father, holding that the Utah Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA) granted standing to Plaintiff to adjudicate his paternity of the child.In her motion to dismiss Mother argued that Plaintiff lacked standing under the UUPA to bring his petition because the child was born within a marriage. The district court denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that to deny Plaintiff standing would violate his procedural due process right under the federal constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on alternative grounds, holding that the UUPA grants standing to Plaintiff, and this standing is not altered when the child was conceived or born during a marriage with a presumed father. View "Olguin v. Anderton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment permitting Husband to rescind his voluntary denial of paternity of a child on the basis of mutual and unilateral mistake of fact and later granting Husband's petition declaring him to be the child's legal father, which ultimately resulted in the dismissal of Plaintiff's paternity petition, holding that the district court erred in allowing rescission of the denial.During her marriage to Husband, Mother had a sexual relationship with Plaintiff and became pregnant. Before the child's birth, Plaintiff filed a paternity petition in the district court. After the child's birth, genetic testing established that the child was Plaintiff's biological daughter. Husband signed a voluntary denial of paternity renouncing his paternity of the child. Mother moved to dismiss Plaintiff's petition, arguing that he lacked standing under the Utah Uniform Parentage Act to challenge Husband's presumed paternity. Simultaneously, Husband petitioned the district court to declare him to be the child's legal father. The district court allowed rescission of the denial and granted Husband's petition for declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where the mistake was not a mistake of fact but, rather, a mistake regarding the legal consequences of signing the declaration and denial, Husband should not have been permitted to rescind the denial. View "Mackley v. Openshaw" on Justia Law

In this divorce case, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's determination that Wife was entitled to alimony but reducing her alimony award in duration and amount because of her extramarital sexual affairs, holding that none of Wife's alleged errors in appeal were an abuse of discretion or plainly incorrect.Specifically, the Court held that the district court (1) properly determined that Wife's infidelities substantially contributed to the end of the marriage; (2) did not abuse its discretion in setting the specific terms of the alimony award; (3) did not err in imputing income to Wife at $1,300 per month; (4) did not err in failing to consider the tax burden of the alimony award; and (5) properly denying Wife's request for attorney fees. View "Gardner v. Gardner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying the petition filed by Petitioners, a same-sex married couple and a woman and her husband requesting that the court validate their agreement that the woman act as a gestational surrogate for the couple, holding that Utah Code 78B-15-802(2)(b), which precludes same-sex male couples from obtaining a valid gestational agreement, is unconstitutional.A married couple, both men, entered into an agreement with a woman and her husband to have the woman act as a gestational surrogate to carry a fertilized embryo that contained the genetic material of one of the couple. This type of gestational agreement is not enforceable in Utah unless it is validated by a tribunal, and a court may not validated the agreement if medical evidence is not presented showing that the "intended mother" is unable to bear a child or will suffer health consequences if she does. Petitioners filed a petition requesting that the district court validate their gestational agreement, but the court denied the petition because neither of the intended parents were women. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute is unconstitutional and that the unconstitutional subsection should be severed. The Court then remanded this case for further proceedings. View "In re Gestational Agreement" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's alimony determination in this divorce action, holding that none of Appellant's alleged errors constituted an abuse of the district court's discretion or were plainly incorrect.Because the parties in this case, Nelson Gardner and Christina Gardner, could not agree on the proper terms of Nelson's alimony obligation to Christina, the matter went to trial. The district court determined that Christina was entitled to alimony but, because of her extramarital sexual affairs, the court reduced Christina's alimony award in amount and duration. Christina appealed, alleging five assignments of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Christina's conduct constituted fault or in establishing the terms of her alimony award; (2) Nelson failed to establish that the district court's failure to consider relevant tax consequences constituted a harmful error; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney fees to Christina. View "Gardner v. Gardner" on Justia Law

In this divorce matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals upholding the orders of the district court regarding child support and parent-time, holding that the court of appeals properly found that it had limited appellate jurisdiction over this matter and did not err in upholding the district court's orders regarding child support and parent-time.Mother filed for a divorce in 2010. The case dragged on for the better part of a decade. Before the Supreme Court, Father argued that the court of appeals (1) erred by construing his notice of appeal to limit the scope of the court of appeals' appellate jurisdiction, (2) erred in affirming the district court's order regarding his child support obligations, and (3) erred in affirming the district court's order denying his petition to modify the amended decree. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Father's notice of appeal limited the scope of appellate jurisdiction; (2) the court of appeals correctly upheld the district court's order regarding child support; and (3) the court of appeals correctly rejected Father's arguments regarding his petition to modify. View "Pulham v. Kirsling" on Justia Law