Guardian Ad Litem v. State Ex Rel. C.D.
2010 UT 66
Utah2010Background
- DCFS removed four Navajo tribal children from their Mother in 2002 under ICWA-protected abuse/neglect proceedings.
- 2003 juvenile court awarded permanent custody and guardianship to the Grandfather but did not terminate the Mother's parental rights.
- 2007 DCFS removed the children from the Grandfather, found abuse by Grandfather, and placed custody with the Division; court found ICWA active efforts previously satisfied and required search for relative/Navajo placements while the children were in non-Indian foster homes.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the disposition but remanded on ICWA-based issues, including whether active efforts were proper and whether placements complied with ICWA placement preferences; it accepted a futility-based exception.
- After certiorari was granted, the children were placed with their biological fathers; the Utah Supreme Court held the issues moot and declined to apply the public-interest mootness exception; it dismissed the petitions for certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review ICWA compliance | Guardian/Grandfather: Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review ICWA compliance. | State/Guardian: Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review ICWA compliance as dispositional issues. | Moot; jurisdiction issue dismissed. |
| Active efforts; futility exception | Grandfather: active efforts were required; futility exception applies. | State/Guardian: no, active efforts not required; futility exception not justified for final resolution. | Moot; issue deemed advisory. |
| ICWA placement preferences compliance | Guardian/Grandfather: placements did not follow ICWA preference. | Division: complied or not required to finalize now. | Moot; not reviewed. |
| Public-interest mootness exception | Court should address because issues affect public interest and may recur. | Not applicable; issues unlikely to evade review. | Not applied; public-interest exception rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (Due process custody rights of parents remain with them)
- Dean v. Rampton, 556 P.2d 205 (Utah 1976) (Constitutional primacy over statutory enactments)
- Bennion v. Sundance Development Corp., 897 P.2d 1232 (Utah Ct.App. 1995) (Subject-matter jurisdiction not mooted by collateral issues)
- Ellis v. Swensen, 16 P.3d 1233 (Utah 2000) (Public-interest mootness exception guidance)
- Anderson v. Taylor, 149 P.3d 352 (Utah 2006) (Public-interest exception considerations for mootness)
- Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Salt Lake Cnty. Comm'n, 28 P.3d 686 (Utah 2001) (Public-interest mootness considerations)
- Cullimore v. Schwendiman, 652 P.2d 915 (Utah 1982) (Mootness outcomes and vacatur discretion)
- Merhish v. H.A. Folsom & Assocs., 646 P.2d 731 (Utah 1982) (Mootness-related dismissal vs vacatur)