Barnett v. Adams
2012 UT App 6
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Mother appeals juvenile court's grant of Father's child protective order petition; she argues errors in hearsay evidence and due process, but the appeal is moot.
- Father filed a protective order petition on May 26, 2010 based on Child's statements alleging abuse by Mother; ex parte order granted, with a June 10, 2010 hearing.
- During the hearing, the court admitted hearsay and found Child in imminent danger, awarding temporary custody to Father and requiring supervision and a safety plan.
- PPO was set to expire around November 10, 2010; Mother appealed on July 8, 2010; the GAL questioned whether the order is final since it may be consolidated with a paternity modification.
- Record lacks clarity on transfer to district court, but the panel concludes the protective order likely expired and the issues are moot; evaluates collateral consequences and public-interest exceptions, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
- The opinion notes preservation issues and states it does not decide whether hearsay was properly admitted or whether the juvenile court complied with procedures, leaving those questions unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot and should be dismissed | Moore/mother argues collateral consequences or public interest | GAL/concedes mootness; no live controversy | Appeal is moot; dismissed |
| Whether collateral consequences save the mooted appeal | Mother lists MIS listing and custody implications as collateral effects | Consequences speculative and not shown as actual/adverse | Collateral consequences not proven; exception does not apply |
| Whether public interest permits review of the mooted claim | Public interest supports review to prevent recurrence | No exceptional public-interest circumstance shown | Public-interest exception not satisfied; review not warranted |
| Whether due process/conduct at hearing preserved the claim for review | Due process issues raised by mother | Argument not preserved; exceptional circumstances not shown | Due process challenge not addressed on the merits; dismissed as moot; not considered on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Giles, 657 P.2d 285 (Utah 1982) (collateral consequences doctrine in criminal context)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1998) (collateral consequences must be actual/adverse, not speculative)
- Moore, 2009 UT App 128, 210 P.3d 967 (Utah App. 2009) (collateral consequences not presumed without actual showing)
- In re C.D., 2010 UT 66, 245 P.3d 724 (Utah 2010) (public-interest mootness exception requires three prongs)
- McRae v. Jackson, 526 P.2d 1190 (Utah 1974) (public-interest exception to mootness; requires exceptional circumstances)