In re N.M., 2018 UT App 141

Child (N.M.) was removed in April 2015 and adjudicated neglected after both parents were incarcerated and had substance-abuse issues; DCFS planned reunification with adoption as the concurrent goal.
Reunification services were later terminated; in September 2016 the juvenile court set adoption as the primary permanency goal and ordered a termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) petition be filed.
In November 2016 the State orally moved to dismiss the TPR and instead seek permanent custody/guardianship for maternal grandparents; the court declined to accept the parties’ stipulation and kept adoption/TPR as the proceeding, scheduling a termination trial.
The State later filed a notice of withdrawal of the TPR; parents moved under rule 60(b) and argued the State had effectively voluntarily dismissed under civil-rule 41—motions the court denied.
At the termination trial the mother voluntarily relinquished rights; the State presented evidence against Father and the juvenile court found Father unfit and terminated his parental rights so the maternal grandparents could adopt.
Father appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by refusing to accept the parties’ stipulation changing the permanency goal and (2) the court should have treated the State’s oral withdrawal as a rule 41 dismissal, divesting jurisdiction over the TPR.

Issue	Father’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court erred by refusing to accept parties’ stipulation to change permanency goal from adoption to permanent custody/guardianship	Court was bound by parties’ stipulation; it should have honored parties’ agreement	Juvenile court has final authority to determine child’s best interest and may reject stipulations that intrude on that duty	Court did not err; it may refuse stipulations that implicate its core responsibility to determine child’s best interest
Whether the State’s oral motion/notice to withdraw the TPR constituted a rule 41 voluntary dismissal that divested the court of jurisdiction	The State’s oral withdrawal (and later notice) was a voluntary dismissal under rule 41, so TPR should have been dismissed and court lost jurisdiction	Even if treated as dismissal, Father hasn’t shown prejudice; court retained jurisdiction over neglected child and would still have to decide permanency	Court’s refusal to treat the matter as a rule 41 dismissal was not reversible error because Father failed to show prejudice or a reasonably likely different outcome

In re E.H., 137 P.3d 809 (Utah 2006) (court may disregard stipulations that compromise its core responsibilities; court retains final authority over child’s best interest)
In re D.A.J., 347 P.3d 430 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (juvenile court not bound by private stipulations on dependency or permanency; court may compel evidence)
In re adoption of J.M., 135 P.3d 902 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (parental delegations or agreements do not oust juvenile court authority to protect child’s best interest)
In re M.H., 347 P.3d 368 (Utah 2014) (best interests of the child is the guiding principle in juvenile proceedings)
Fisher v. Bybee, 104 P.3d 1198 (Utah 2004) (standard of review for denial of rule 60(b) relief)
Thiele v. Anderson, 975 P.2d 481 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (voluntary dismissal under rule 41 renders proceedings a nullity)