In re E.S...(A.S. & J.S. v. State & R.S.)
2013 UT App 222
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- A.S. (Father) and J.S. (Stepmother) appeal a juvenile court order that denied their petition to terminate the parental rights of R.S. (Mother) and granted Mother custody of E.S. and N.S.
- A therapy team was appointed for the children in November 2011; Father and Stepmother moved to replace the therapist, and the court granted a new therapist in June 2012, rendering this issue moot.
- Father and Stepmother argued the juvenile court acted in dual roles by ordering removal of the children and then presiding over the remainder of the proceedings; they did not move to disqualify under Rule 63, Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
- They asserted there was insufficient evidence that they actively alienated the children from Mother or engaged in emotional maltreatment; the court’s factual findings must be reviewed for clear error with record support.
- There was an apparent lack of a hearing on contempt sanctions; the court summarily punished Father and Stepmother, which the court later found to be error and vacated the contempt findings and sanctions, remanding for a hearing on the contempt allegations.
- Overall, the court affirmed the order in all respects except the contempt determination, which was vacated and remanded for a hearing on the contempt allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt without a hearing | Father/Stepmother contend contempt sanctions were imposed without notice or a separate hearing. | Juvenile court found admissions and stipulations supported contempt; sanctions were proper. | Vacate contempt findings and remand for a hearing. |
| Mootness of therapist substitution | Challenge to therapist appointment should affect ongoing proceedings. | Therapist change granted earlier than appeal resolves the issue. | Issue is moot. |
| Judicial bias and dual roles | Judge remained after removal of guardians; could not guarantee a fair trial. | No Rule 63 disqualification motion was filed; issue not properly preserved. | Not properly before appellate court; preserved issue not addressed further. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for alienation/emotional maltreatment | There was insufficient evidence to support active alienation and emotional maltreatment findings. | Evidence supported the court’s findings; reweighing not allowed on appeal. | Record insufficient for review due to lack of transcript; presumption of regularity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.R., 21 P.3d 680 (2001 UT App) (clear-error standard for juvenile findings; evidence weighs.)
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (2007 UT 82) (appellate court may not reweigh evidence; standard of review.)
- Gardiner v. York, 233 P.3d 500 (2010 UT App 108) (summary contempt limits; need for due process where not immediate.)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (2004 UT 72) (disqualification and due process considerations in judicial procedure.)
- State v. Carter, 776 P.2d 886 (Utah 1989) (due process and judicial conduct considerations in Utah.)