D.A. v. D.H.
329 P.3d 828
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Grandparents seek custody of their infant granddaughter under Utah's Custody and Visitation for Persons Other than Parents Act after the mother dies.
- There is a rebuttable presumption that the father has the fundamental right and duty to care for his child, which the Act requires the non-parent to rebut with clear and convincing evidence of several factors.
- One qualifying factor under the Act is that the parent 'is absent'; Grandparents argue the deceased mother was the absent parent.
- Father had difficulty with paternity initially but later established a relationship with Child; Child lived with Father after the mother's death and then with him for a period.
- Juvenile court concluded Grandparents did not show the father was absent or otherwise unfit, and dismissed the petition.
- Grandparents appeal, contending the statute's subsection (2)(g) should refer to the parent whose presumption is being rebutted; the father argues it refers to the parent whose decisions are challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who does 'the parent' refer to in subsection (2)(g)? | Grandparents: 'the parent' means the absent parent (mother). | Father: 'the parent' means the parent whose decisions are challenged (Father). | Unambiguous: 'the parent' refers to the parent whose presumption is being rebutted (Father). |
| Is the statute ambiguous requiring legislative history? | Grandparents claim ambiguity justifies using legislative history. | Court should rely on plain language and harmonious reading. | Statute unambiguous; legislative history not required. |
| Does the Act permit altering a fit parent's rights without findings of absence/neglect regarding that parent? | Grandparents suggest broader reach to protect child interests when a parent is absent. | Reading protects the fit parent's constitutional rights and requires absence or abuse/neglect findings about the challenged parent. | The Act requires absence or abuse/neglect findings about the challenged parent. |
| Would Grandparents' reading undermine the parent's fundamental liberty interests? | Potentially violates parent's liberty by allowing non-parents to gain custody without fitness findings. | Reading preserves parent's rights while enabling judgment when appropriate. | Grandparents' interpretation would undermine parental rights; rejected. |
| Should legislative history be consulted when the statute is clear? | Historical statements support Grandparents' reading. | No need to rely on history when text is clear; history does not alter outcome. | Legislative history not necessary; statute unambiguous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. (2000)) (parents' fundamental right to care for children)
- In re M.C., 940 P.2d 1229 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (parental rights are fundamental; guardian of parental rights in custody decisions)
- World Peace Movement of America v. Newspaper Agency Corp., 879 P.2d 253 (Utah 1994) (statutory interpretation and legislative history considerations)
- Maestas, 63 P.3d 621 (Utah 2002) (statutory interpretation; harmonious reading of statutes)
- In re M.E.P., 114 P.3d 596 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (statutory interpretation in custody cases; clear and convincing standard)
- Jensen ex rel. Jensen v. Cunningham, 250 P.3d 465 (Utah 2011) (public policy and parental rights under Utah Constitution)