In re A.J.B.
2017 UT App 237
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- In June 2014 DCFS filed a petition in Utah juvenile court alleging abuse/neglect of A.J.B. (born 2012) and stating neither parent was a member of a federally recognized tribe; petition alleged child resided in Duchesne County, Utah.
- Mother later admitted the amended petition’s facts and the juvenile court entered findings in August 2014 concluding it had jurisdiction and that ICWA did not apply (Mother did not object then).
- Later, Mother’s parents moved to Whiterocks on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation; custody was eventually changed in 2016 and Child was placed with paternal grandparents who could relocate to Oklahoma.
- In 2016 maternal aunt/uncle (Ute Tribe members) sought custody in tribal court and asked juvenile court to transfer jurisdiction; Ute Family Services filed a similar motion; juvenile court struck/denied those filings and motions.
- DCFS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights; at the termination hearing the juvenile court declined Mother’s request to confer with the tribal court under Utah R. Civ. P. 100 and terminated Mother’s rights.
- Mother appealed arguing (1) juvenile court lacked jurisdiction (tribal court should have had jurisdiction) and (2) the court abused discretion by not contacting the tribal court before termination.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah juvenile court had jurisdiction over initial custody determination | Juvenile court lost/divested jurisdiction once child resided within tribal reservation and tribal law controlled | Utah was child’s "home state" at commencement; juvenile court made the initial custody determination and retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction | Juvenile court had jurisdiction at the outset and never lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction |
| Whether juvenile court should have communicated with tribal court under Utah R. Civ. P. 100 | Court should have postponed trial to hold a conference with tribal judge to resolve jurisdiction | Rule 100 does not apply to interstate/tribal coordination; UCCJEA governs and permits (but does not require) inter-court communication | Court did not abuse discretion in declining to contact tribal court; communication under UCCJEA is permissive and no unusual circumstances compelled it |
Key Cases Cited
- Nevares v. Adoptive Couple, 384 P.3d 213 (Utah 2016) (UCCJEA purpose and that subject-matter jurisdiction questions reviewed for correctness)
- Bennett v. Bigelow, 387 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2016) (court’s interpretation of procedural rules reviewed for correctness)
- Ross v. State, 293 P.3d 345 (Utah 2012) (standard for abuse of discretion—decision beyond limits of reasonability)
- In re Z.Z., 310 P.3d 772 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (parties cannot divest court of continuing jurisdiction by moving during a pendency)
- Card v. Card, 391 P.3d 264 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (use of "may" in statute indicates discretionary power)