D.T. v. C.M.
267 P.3d 930
Utah2011Background
- Child was born in 2000 and largely resided in Tennessee with Parents; Father has a documented history of sexually abusing his children, including Stepdaughter and Sister.
- Sister, Child's half-sister, took Child to Utah in 2007; guardianship with Sister was granted in Utah and later revoked, with Child eventually returned to Parents in January 2008.
- Sister petitioned for protective orders in Utah (Nov 2007 and Feb 2008) amid concerns about Child's safety; the first protective order was denied, the second granted, and Child was returned to Sister pending proceedings.
- In December 2007, Sister filed a Termination Petition in Utah; Parents challenged subject matter jurisdiction, forum convenience, and Sister's conduct, among other arguments.
- Utah juvenile court found Utah to be Child's home state, held Sister to be a 'person acting as a parent' at relevant times, and terminated Parents' rights on clear and convincing evidence, based largely on findings of sexual abuse by Parents toward siblings and risk to Child; court stayed Utah proceedings pending Tennessee's acceptance of jurisdiction and engaged in court-to-court communications that led to Tennessee declining jurisdiction.
- On appeal, Parents challenged jurisdiction, forum, due process related to communications, and sufficiency of the evidence; Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Home-state jurisdiction | Parents contended Utah lacked home state status due to Sister's alleged unjustifiable actions. | Utah properly exercised home-state jurisdiction because Sister remained a 'person acting as a parent' and Child resided in Utah for the requisite period. | Utah was Child's home state; Utah could exercise exclusive jurisdiction. |
| Inconvenient forum and stay | Utah's inconvenient-forum ruling required dismissal rather than stay; Tennessee should take over without further stay. | Utah properly stayed proceedings and retained jurisdiction while Tennessee considered jurisdiction, consistent with UUCCJEA. | Utah may stay proceedings rather than dismiss; the Inconvenient Forum Order was proper. |
| Court-to-court communication and due process | Parents were impermissibly excluded from the court-to-court communication and their due process rights were violated. | Exclusion was permissible; the parties had a meaningful opportunity to present facts and arguments; the issue preservation was lacking for certain claims. | Exclusion was permissible; due process claims not preserved for review. |
| Standard of proof and sufficiency of findings | Challenge to proper standard of proof and whether findings were contradictory. | Juvenile court applied correct clear-and-convincing standard; findings weighed credibility appropriately and were not against the clear weight of the evidence. | Correct standard applied; findings supported by the clear-and-convincing evidence standard. |
| Best interests and statutory grounds for termination | Parents claim nothing supports termination beyond their own denials. | Evidence of sexual abuse by Parents toward siblings, plus risk to Child, supports termination; adoptive relatives were willing to adopt. | Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence; best interests favored termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.D. (In re Z.D. II), 2006 UT 54, 147 P.3d 401 (Utah Supreme Court, 2006) (established rule on appellate review of juvenile court findings with deference and 'clearly erroneous' standard)
- In re Z.D. I, 2004 UT App 261, 98 P.3d 40 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2004) (preceded In re Z.D. II on standard of review for juvenile court findings)
- Hatch v. Hatch (In re Custody of Kalbes), 2007 WI App 136, 302 Wis. 2d 215, 733 N.W.2d 648 (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2007) (discusses emergency jurisdiction concepts in custody matters)
- State v. Masciantonio, 850 P.2d 492 (Utah Court of Appeals, 1993) (plain-language interpretation governs statutory construction in UUCCJEA context)
- In re V.K.S., 2003 UT App 13, 63 P.3d 1284 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2003) (unilateral guardianship revocation limited; context in home-state analysis)