GAL challenge in Utah

2024The juvenile court’s determination that termination of Parents’ parental rights was strictly necessary to advance the children’s best interest was supported by the record, and we perceive no reversible error in the court’s grant of the GAL’s rule 59 motion. ¶142 Affirmed. 20220803-CA 20220820-CA 62 2024 UT App 25

2024The juvenile court’s determination that termination of Parents’ parental rights was strictly necessary to advance the children’s best interest was supported by the record, and we perceive no reversible error in the court’s grant of the GAL’s rule 59 motion. ¶142 Affirmed. 20220803-CA 20220820-CA 62 2024 UT App 25

2008The petition on appeal concedes that the juvenile court's findings of fact and conclusions of law "are correct as to both law and fact." Mother contends that "her love and devotion to her children should counter any facts presented in the Court's ruling that seem to support termination of her parental rights." We overturn the juvenile court's decision "only if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence." In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12 , 171 P.3d 435 .

2008The petition on appeal concedes that the juvenile court's findings of fact and conclusions of law "are correct as to both law and fact." Mother contends that "her love and devotion to her children should counter any facts presented in the Court's ruling that seem to support termination of her parental rights." We overturn the juvenile court's decision "only if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence." In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12 , 171 P.3d 435 .

2023He also requested a hearing regarding the GAL’s challenge to the VDP. 20210921-CA 4 2023 UT App 3 In re J.E. ¶11 In late September 2021, while Father’s motion for visitation was pending, the genetic test results came back and demonstrated that Father is not Child’s biological father. ¶12 Eventually, the court held an evidentiary hearing to consider Father’s motion for visitation.

2023We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s decision to sustain the GAL’s challenge to the VDP, but remand with instructions for the court to modify its order to indicate that it has prospective effect only, and for such other proceedings as may be appropriate. 20210921-CA 23 2023 UT App 3

2021Even to the extent that this issue arose in the context of a motion for new trial, which normally “invokes the sound discretion of the trial court,” see ASC Utah, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, LC, 2013 UT 24, ¶ 21 , 309 P.3d 201 (quotation simplified), where a court’s “decision rests on an erroneous legal determination,” such as the misapplication of a legal standard, that court has necessarily abused its discretion, see Maak v. IHC Health Services, Inc., 2016 UT App 73, ¶ 26 , 372 P.3d 64 ; see also Gardner v. Gardner, 2019 UT 61 , ¶ 18, 452 P.3d 1134 . 20200039-CA 7 2021 UT App 98 In re Z.C

2021Even to the extent that this issue arose in the context of a motion for new trial, which normally “invokes the sound discretion of the trial court,” see ASC Utah, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, LC, 2013 UT 24, ¶ 21 , 309 P.3d 201 (quotation simplified), where a court’s “decision rests on an erroneous legal determination,” such as the misapplication of a legal standard, that court has necessarily abused its discretion, see Maak v. IHC Health Services, Inc., 2016 UT App 73, ¶ 26 , 372 P.3d 64 ; see also Gardner v. Gardner, 2019 UT 61 , ¶ 18, 452 P.3d 1134 . 20200039-CA 7 2021 UT App 98 In re Z.C

2021Even to the extent that this issue arose in the context of a motion for new trial, which normally “invokes the sound discretion of the trial court,” see ASC Utah, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, LC, 2013 UT 24, ¶ 21 , 309 P.3d 201 (quotation simplified), where a court’s “decision rests on an erroneous legal determination,” such as the misapplication of a legal standard, that court has necessarily abused its discretion, see Maak v. IHC Health Services, Inc., 2016 UT App 73, ¶ 26 , 372 P.3d 64 ; see also Gardner v. Gardner, 2019 UT 61 , ¶ 18, 452 P.3d 1134 . 20200039-CA 7 2021 UT App 98 In re Z.C

2021Even to the extent that this issue arose in the context of a motion for new trial, which normally “invokes the sound discretion of the trial court,” see ASC Utah, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, LC, 2013 UT 24, ¶ 21 , 309 P.3d 201 (quotation simplified), where a court’s “decision rests on an erroneous legal determination,” such as the misapplication of a legal standard, that court has necessarily abused its discretion, see Maak v. IHC Health Services, Inc., 2016 UT App 73, ¶ 26 , 372 P.3d 64 ; see also Gardner v. Gardner, 2019 UT 61 , ¶ 18, 452 P.3d 1134 . 20200039-CA 7 2021 UT App 98 In re Z.C

2019Because Mother failed to object to the disclosures when they were first made, she waived her right to 20170659-CA 22 2019 UT App 134 In re L.L. do so at the subsequent hearing.