Guardian Ad Litem v. State Ex Rel. Cd, 2010 UT 66

DCFS petitioned to remove C.D., A.D., J.T., and S.T. from Mother, all Navajo members or eligible members, triggering ICWA.
2003 juvenile court granted Grandfather permanent custody/guardianship but did not terminate Mother's rights; children then lived with Grandfather.
2007 DCFS removed children due to allegations against Grandfather; court found prior active efforts in the earlier placement and held further active efforts were not required; directed search for relative or Navajo placement while placing children in non-Indian foster homes.
On appeal, Mother and Grandfather challenged ICWA compliance; CA addressed whether the court had jurisdiction to review ICWA active‑efforts and placement requirements and whether active efforts had been properly undertaken.
After certiorari was granted, the children were placed with their biological fathers; DCFS suggested mootness, and Utah Supreme Court declined to address the ICWA issues as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review ICWA compliance	Grandfather/Mother: jurisdiction exists to review active efforts and placement decisions.	State/Guardian: jurisdiction over ICWA issues lies within the appeal from the dispositional order.	Jurisdiction deemed moot along with ICWA compliance.
Whether the ICWA active‑efforts requirement was satisfied	Grandfather: active efforts required; prior efforts were insufficient.	State: active efforts already satisfied in the earlier placement; no further efforts required.	Active efforts issue deemed moot; mootness due to placement with fathers.
Whether ICWA placement preferences were complied with in subsequent placements	Grandfather: placement with relatives/Navajo members not adequately pursued.	State: future placement disputes moot given current custodial arrangements.	Placement‑preferences issue moot; no further review necessary.
Whether the public-interest exception to mootness should apply	Guardian: issues are of wide public concern and could recur.	State/Guardian: not likely to evade review; public‑interest exception not satisfied.	Public-interest exception declined; issues remain moot.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (custody rights protected by due process)
Dean v. Rampton, 556 P.2d 205 (Utah 1976) (constitutional supremacy over conflicting statutes)
Bennion v. Sundance Development Corp., 897 P.2d 1232 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (subject matter jurisdiction mootness distinction)
Ellis v. Swensen, 2000 UT 101 (Utah Supreme Court 2000) (mootness and public‑interest exception framework)
Burkett v. Schwendiman, 773 P.2d 42 (Utah 1989) (public interest/evading review considerations)
Anderson v. Taylor, 2006 UT 79 (Utah Supreme Court 2006) (short duration cases and likelihood of evading review)
Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Salt Lake Cnty. Comm'n, 2001 UT 55 (Utah Supreme Court 2001) (public meetings act and reviewability)
Cullimore v. Schwendiman, 652 P.2d 915 (Utah 1982) (mootness after appeal -- discretionary dismissal)
Merhish v. H.A. Folsom & Assocs., 646 P.2d 731 (Utah 1982) (mootness and discretionary dismissal principles)