250 P.3d 1016
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Mother RF. and Father R.G. appeal the juvenile court's termination of their parental rights in J.R.GF.; they contend they were not informed pretrial of the right to appointed counsel and that their mid-trial request for counsel was denied; the right to counsel asserted is statutory, not constitutional; Utah law requires appointment of counsel for indigent parties upon request; the court applied a prejudice standard rather than automatic reversal for statutory rights; substantial evidence supports termination due to abandonment and unfitness; Petitioners provided stable guardianship and care for the Child; the Child's best interests and the guardians’ caregiving undermined parents' claims; the record shows the Child benefited from consistency with Petitioners; the court affirmed the termination order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel notice pretrial violated statutory rights | Mother and Father contend lack of pretrial notice violated statutory right | Court treated as non-prejudicial error since statutory right differs from constitutional right | Prejudice required; no prejudice shown so no reversal |
| Mid-trial request for appointed counsel | Appointed counsel would have aided presentation and discovery | No prejudice shown; speculative improvements not enough | No reversal; prejudice not demonstrated |
| Standard for prejudice in statutory right to counsel | Statutory right should mirror criminal standard of prejudice | Statutory right uses separate prejudice standard not presuming error | Prejudice must be shown to obtain relief; no automatic prejudice rule |
Key Cases Cited
- In re W.B.J., 966 P.2d 295 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (prejudice required for denial of statutory right to counsel)
- In re D.C., 968 P.2d 761 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (statutory right to counsel; different protections than constitutional)
- In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11 (Utah Ct.App. 1994) (right to counsel guaranteed by statute; issues of effectiveness)
- Morra v. Grand Cnty., 2010 UT 21, 230 P.3d 1022 (Utah Supreme Court 2010) (prejudice required for relief on statutory rights)
- State v. Arguelles, 2003 UT 1, 63 P.3d 731 (Utah Supreme Court 2003) (burden to show likelihood of a different result)
- Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516 (Utah 1994) (speculation insufficient to demonstrate prejudice)
- Fernandez v. Cook, 870 P.2d 870 (Utah 1993) (speculation insufficient to prove different outcome)
- State v. Wengreen, 2007 UT App 264, 167 P.3d 516 (Utah Ct.App. 2007) (speculative prejudice not adequate)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (constitutional prejudice absent in certain complete-denial scenarios)