parents motion in Utah

2025CONCLUSION ¶20 Because we agree with the juvenile court that a permanent guardianship order does not have prospective application, as that 20240512-CA and 20240524-CA 10 2025 UT App 182 In re G.C. term is used in rule 60(b)(5) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, and because the circumstances presented here are not sufficiently extraordinary to justify setting aside the guardianship order, we affirm the juvenile court’s denial of Parents’ rule 60(b) motion.

2025CONCLUSION ¶20 Because we agree with the juvenile court that a permanent guardianship order does not have prospective application, as that 20240512-CA and 20240524-CA 10 2025 UT App 182 In re G.C. term is used in rule 60(b)(5) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, and because the circumstances presented here are not sufficiently extraordinary to justify setting aside the guardianship order, we affirm the juvenile court’s denial of Parents’ rule 60(b) motion.

2024Under the circumstances of this case, we reject Parents’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. ¶45 In child welfare cases, we employ the “Strickland test to determine a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.” See In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)), cert. denied, 890 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1994).

2024Under the circumstances of this case, we reject Parents’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. ¶45 In child welfare cases, we employ the “Strickland test to determine a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.” See In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)), cert. denied, 890 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1994).

2024“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the [party] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Kitzmiller, 2021 UT App 87, ¶ 14 , 493 P.3d 1159 (quotation simplified). ¶33 Finally, Parents challenge the juvenile court’s earlier order following the shelter hearing, asserting that the court failed to engage in the proper statutory analysis before issuing its order finding that removal was necessary.

2024“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the [party] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Kitzmiller, 2021 UT App 87, ¶ 14 , 493 P.3d 1159 (quotation simplified). ¶33 Finally, Parents challenge the juvenile court’s earlier order following the shelter hearing, asserting that the court failed to engage in the proper statutory analysis before issuing its order finding that removal was necessary.

2024Under that test, Parents “must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) this deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, ¶ 19 , 473 P.3d 184 (quotation simplified).

2024Under that test, Parents “must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) this deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, ¶ 19 , 473 P.3d 184 (quotation simplified).

2024Under that test, Parents “must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) this deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, ¶ 19 , 473 P.3d 184 (quotation simplified).

2024Under that test, Parents “must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) this deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, ¶ 19 , 473 P.3d 184 (quotation simplified).

2024Our decision affirming the juvenile court’s neglect adjudication means that the court has continuing jurisdiction over the Children, regardless of the merits of Parents’ challenge to the court’s abuse adjudication. ¶43 In situations like this one, the propriety of the court’s abuse adjudication ends up being an inconsequential point, unless the 20230102-CA 20230103-CA 18 2024 UT App 47 In re K.J. affected parent can demonstrate that there will be “collateral consequences associated with an abuse determination that do not follow from a neglect determination.” Id. ¶ 34.

2024Our decision affirming the juvenile court’s neglect adjudication means that the court has continuing jurisdiction over the Children, regardless of the merits of Parents’ challenge to the court’s abuse adjudication. ¶43 In situations like this one, the propriety of the court’s abuse adjudication ends up being an inconsequential point, unless the 20230102-CA 20230103-CA 18 2024 UT App 47 In re K.J. affected parent can demonstrate that there will be “collateral consequences associated with an abuse determination that do not follow from a neglect determination.” Id. ¶ 34.

2009The trial court denied First Parents' motion on the grounds that the evidence was discoverable prior to trial, could have been discovered with due diligence, and even if presented at the trial, was not material to the case, was merely cumulative evidence and the credibility of the evidence due to time and distance (evidence is over 6 years old) was not credible or probative to the case. ¶ 42 Although the subject matter of the affidavit is indeed troubling, given the trial court's broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial or to amend the judgment, see Smith v. Fairfax Realty, I

2009The trial court denied First Parents' motion on the grounds that the evidence was discoverable prior to trial, could have been discovered with due diligence, and even if presented at the trial, was not material to the case, was merely cumulative evidence and the credibility of the evidence due to time and distance (evidence is over 6 years old) was not credible or probative to the case. ¶ 42 Although the subject matter of the affidavit is indeed troubling, given the trial court's broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial or to amend the judgment, see Smith v. Fairfax Realty, I

2009The trial court denied First Parents' motion on the grounds that the evidence was discoverable prior to trial, could have been discovered with due diligence, and even if presented at the trial, was not material to the case, was merely cumulative evidence and the credibility of the evidence due to time and distance (evidence is over 6 years old) was not credible or probative to the case. ¶ 42 Although the subject matter of the affidavit is indeed troubling, given the trial court's broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial or to amend the judgment, see Smith v. Fairfax Realty, I

2009The trial court denied First Parents’ motion on the grounds that the evidence was discoverable prior to trial, could have been discovered with due diligence, and even if presented at the trial, was not material to the case, was merely cumulative evidence and the credibility of the evidence due to time and distance (evidence is over 6 years old) was not credible or probative to the case. ¶ 42 Although the subject matter of the affidavit is indeed troubling, given the trial court’s broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial or to amend the judgment, see Smith v. Fairfax Realty, I

2009The trial court denied First Parents' motion on the grounds that the evidence was discoverable prior to trial, could have been discovered with due diligence, and even if presented at the trial, was not material to the case, was merely cumulative evidence and the credibility of the evidence due to time and distance (evidence is over 6 years old) was not credible or probative to the case. ¶ 42 Although the subject matter of the affidavit is indeed troubling, given the trial court's broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial or to amend the judgment, see Smith v. Fairfax Realty, I

2009The trial court denied First Parents' motion on the grounds that the evidence was discoverable prior to trial, could have been discovered with due diligence, and even if presented at the trial, was not material to the case, was merely cumulative evidence and the credibility of the evidence due to time and distance (evidence is over 6 years old) was not credible or probative to the case. ¶ 42 Although the subject matter of the affidavit is indeed troubling, given the trial court's broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial or to amend the judgment, see Smith v. Fairfax Realty, I

2025However, the court ordered that Mother’s parent-time was to be supervised by Father until she could demonstrate abstinence from illicit substances and address her mental health issues. ¶21 Parents appealed in October 2023, and the guardian ad litem (GAL) subsequently requested a hearing on Parents’ motion for relief from the juvenile court’s order granting Aunt permanent 20230945-CA 10 2025 UT App 17 In re K.M. custody and guardianship.

2025Relatedly, Parents claim that the juvenile court abused its discretion in rejecting the evidence that 20230945-CA 11 2025 UT App 17 In re K.M.

2024We review a motion for judgment as a matter of law for correctness and “accept as true all testimony and reasonable inferences that support the jury’s verdict.” Smith v. Volkswagen SouthTowne, Inc., 2022 UT 29, ¶ 38 , 513 P.3d 729 (cleaned up). 3 2.

2024We review a motion for judgment as a matter of law for correctness and “accept as true all testimony and reasonable inferences that support the jury’s verdict.” Smith v. Volkswagen SouthTowne, Inc., 2022 UT 29, ¶ 38 , 513 P.3d 729 (cleaned up). 3 2.

2024Here, we believe, is a case where that rather rare occasion must be met with reversal and without equivocation.” Martin v. Ehlers, 371 P.2d 851, 852 (Utah 1962). granting the Parents’ motion for judgment as a matter of law obviates the need to address the conditional grant of a new trial. 20230392-CA 9 2024 UT App 177 Madsen v. Beacon Roofing ¶20 In negligence cases, a duty is “defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another.” Davis v. Wal- Mart Stores Inc., 2022 UT App 87, ¶ 10 , 514 P.3d 1209 (cleaned

2024Here, we believe, is a case where that rather rare occasion must be met with reversal and without equivocation.” Martin v. Ehlers, 371 P.2d 851, 852 (Utah 1962). granting the Parents’ motion for judgment as a matter of law obviates the need to address the conditional grant of a new trial. 20230392-CA 9 2024 UT App 177 Madsen v. Beacon Roofing ¶20 In negligence cases, a duty is “defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another.” Davis v. Wal- Mart Stores Inc., 2022 UT App 87, ¶ 10 , 514 P.3d 1209 (cleaned

2024Here, we believe, is a case where that rather rare occasion must be met with reversal and without equivocation.” Martin v. Ehlers, 371 P.2d 851, 852 (Utah 1962). granting the Parents’ motion for judgment as a matter of law obviates the need to address the conditional grant of a new trial. 20230392-CA 9 2024 UT App 177 Madsen v. Beacon Roofing ¶20 In negligence cases, a duty is “defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another.” Davis v. Wal- Mart Stores Inc., 2022 UT App 87, ¶ 10 , 514 P.3d 1209 (cleaned

2024Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the Parents’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. 20230392-CA 19 2024 UT App 177 Madsen v. Beacon Roofing CONCLUSION ¶34 Having concluded that based on the evidence presented at trial Cope operated his vehicle in a negligent manner, at least to some degree, we perceive no error in the district court’s grant of the Parents’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. ¶35 Affirmed. 20230392-CA 20 2024 UT App 177

2022The facts recited in this paragraph regarding Parents’ communications with their various attorneys are not in the record, but are included in the materials submitted on appeal in support of Parents’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 20210353-CA 20210354-CA 10 2022 UT App 114 In re A.H. to confer and negotiate about possible permanency options short of termination of Parents’ rights. ¶21 Those negotiations bore fruit, at least in part.

2013They argue, however, that the juvenile court, through its January 2010 order, “fulfill[ed], in its entirety, the conditions required to divest the juvenile court of exclusive ongoing jurisdiction, and thus subject matter jurisdiction in this matter.” We disagree. 20110678‐CA 5 2013 UT App 215 In re Z.Z. ¶11 As a threshold matter, we first note—and both parties agree—that the juvenile court properly exercised jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78B‐13‐201 when it held the shelter hearing and ordered the children into the custody of DCFS in July 2009.

2007Id. 980 The Parents claim absolute sanctuary within this privilege.

2007Id. 980 The Parents claim absolute sanctuary within this privilege.