A.S. v. State
310 P.3d 744
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Father and J.S. (Stepmother) appeal a juvenile court order denying termination of R.S.'s parental rights and granting custody of E.S. and N.S. to R.S.'s mother.
- Therapist for the children was appointed in November 2011 and changed in June 2012; the appeal notes the change as moot because relief was granted earlier.
- Father and Stepmother challenge the court's dual role, arguing bias after a removal of the children while the same judge presided over the remainder of proceedings.
- They contend there was insufficient evidence of active parental alienation and emotional maltreatment by them toward the children.
- The court found contempt by Father and Stepmother but did not conduct a separate hearing or provide notice, prompting error and remand.
- The court vacated the contempt findings and sanctions and remanded for a contempt hearing, while affirming the rest of the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the therapist substitution moot? | Father/Stepmother argue the original therapy arrangement was improper. | Respondents claim the relief sought (therapy change) was granted earlier, making the issue moot. | Issue moot; relief granted before appeal. |
| Did the court's dual role require disqualification or bias? | The judge remained after removal, risking bias or conflict. | No timely Rule 63 motion was filed; issue not properly preserved. | Not properly before on appeal; waived. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of active alienation and emotional maltreatment? | Findings were not supported by the evidence. | Record supports the juvenile court's findings. | Cannot reweigh evidence; record deficient in trial transcript; issues unresolved. |
| Were contempt findings and sanctions properly imposed? | Contempt and sanctions should be upheld if warranted. | Contempt was based on trial conduct; may require a hearing. | Vacate contempt findings and sanctions; remand for a contempt hearing. |
| Did the petition raise a valid claim regarding judicial conduct? | Contends misconduct by the court. | Canons of judicial conduct claim lacks merit. | Meritless; not addressed further. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.R., 21 P.3d 680 (Utah Ct.App. 2001) (clear weight of the evidence standard; defer to trial findings)
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (do not reweigh evidence when a factual foundation exists)
- State v. Blubaugh, 904 P.2d 688 (Utah Ct.App. 1995) (presumption of regularity absent record defects)
- Gardiner v. York, 233 P.3d 500 (Utah Ct.App. 2010) (summary contempt allowed only with immediate disruption; due process limits)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (motion to disqualify; procedural preclusion when not raised in trial court)
- Utah v. Carter, 776 P.2d 886 (Utah 1989) (judicial conduct considerations; canons immaterial when not merited)