In re Z.Z...(K.Z. and V.Z. v. State)
2013 UT App 215
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Utah Court of Appeals affirming termination of parental rights of K.Z. (Father) and V.Z. (Mother) over five children; Amended Opinion supersedes prior 2012 version.
- DCFS/juvenile court history with the family dating back to 1997, including sixteen prior cases and prior permanent removals.
- July 2009: DCFS filed expedited placement and custody petition alleging habitual drug use; children placed in DCFS custody; parents fled to Colorado.
- January 2010: court terminated the case for administrative purposes but expressly retained jurisdiction over the July 2009 custody determination.
- April–May 2010: four children returned to Utah; fifth located; DCFS filed a new petition; trial date set for 2011; notice given to parents; parental rights terminated in May 2011; motions for a new trial denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate rights under UCCJEA | Parents contend Utah lost exclusive jurisdiction after fleeing to Colorado | Court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the July 2009 determination; January 2010 order did not divest | Jurisdiction retained; termination proper under UCCJEA |
| Whether the April 2011 termination trial violated due process due to absence of Parents | Parents were denied due process because they could not attend the trial | Notice was provided; no absolute right to attend; absence did not prejudice case | No due process violation; denial of a new trial appropriate |
| Whether January 2010 dismissal divested Utah court of exclusive continuing jurisdiction | Court’s January 2010 order divested Utah of jurisdiction | Order terminated case administratively but retained jurisdiction over the July 2009 determination | No divestiture; court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over July 2009 determination |
| Whether relocation to Colorado affected the court’s jurisdiction or the continuation of proceedings | Relocation ended Utah’s jurisdiction over the case | Relocation did not end jurisdiction; continued proceedings could be continued if family returned | Relocation did not terminate jurisdiction; April 2010 proceedings and termination were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.R., 257 P.3d 1043 (Utah App. 2011) (jurisdiction and due process considerations in termination cases; findings reviewed for accuracy)
- In re A.E., 29 P.3d 31 (Utah App. 2001) (due process considerations; presence at trial not absolutely required with proper notice)
- State v. Wanosik, 31 P.3d 615 (Utah App. 2001) (notice sufficiency and absence at proceedings; continuance not required in all cases)
- In re J.B., 53 P.3d 968 (Utah App. 2002) (due process and attendance in termination proceedings; standard of review for absence)