Mother motion in Utah

2019Relying on the court of appeals’ decision in R.P. v. K.S.W., 2014 UT App 38 , 320 P.3d 1084 , and its progeny, Mother argued that subsection 78B-15-607(1) of the UUPA denies Castro standing to challenge the presumption of paternity established under subsection 204(1)(a). ¶8 In his opposition to Mother’s motion to dismiss, Castro conceded that R.P. v. K.S.W. is binding upon the district court and limits standing as to who may challenge the presumption of paternity.

2019Relying on the court of appeals’ decision in R.P. v. K.S.W., 2014 UT App 38 , 320 P.3d 1084 , and its progeny, Mother argued that subsection 78B-15-607(1) of the UUPA denies Castro standing to challenge the presumption of paternity established under subsection 204(1)(a). ¶8 In his opposition to Mother’s motion to dismiss, Castro conceded that R.P. v. K.S.W. is binding upon the district court and limits standing as to who may challenge the presumption of paternity.

2015App 288, ¶ 3, 317 P.3d 964 ("We review Mother's challenge to the juvenile court's best interests determination for an abuse of discretion." (citing In re adoption of T.H., 2007 UT App 341 , ¶ 9, 171 P.3d 480 ).

2015Cf. In re J.F., 2013 UT App 288 , ¶ 3, 317 P.3d 964 (‚We review Mother’s challenge to the juvenile court’s best interests determination for an abuse of discretion.‛ (citing In re adoption of T.H., 2007 UT App 341 , ¶ 9, 171 P.3d 480 )).

2014Mother's claim that the findings are void of any details about the Mother or her abilities is unpreserved, and it also lacks merit. 5 We "review the juvenile court's factual findings based upon the clearly erroneous standard." In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11 , 21 P.3d 680 . "[In order to overturn the juvenile court's decision, the result must be against the clear weight of the evidence or leave the appellate court with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made." In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, 112 , 171 P.3d 435 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014Mother's claim that the findings are void of any details about the Mother or her abilities is unpreserved, and it also lacks merit. 5 We "review the juvenile court's factual findings based upon the clearly erroneous standard." In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11 , 21 P.3d 680 . "[In order to overturn the juvenile court's decision, the result must be against the clear weight of the evidence or leave the appellate court with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made." In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, 112 , 171 P.3d 435 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014Cf. Salt Lake City v. Almansor, 2014 UT App 88, ¶ 11 , 325 P.3d 847 (rejecting a plain error claim regarding a trial court's failure to procure a witness, because the defendant did not "address the anticipated content of the witness's testimony at all" and did not "demonstrate how her testimony would have helped the defense").

2014Cf. Salt Lake City v. Almansor, 2014 UT App 88, ¶ 11 , 325 P.3d 847 (rejecting a plain error claim regarding a trial court's failure to procure a witness, because the defendant did not "address the anticipated content of the witness's testimony at all" and did not "demonstrate how her testimony would have helped the defense").

2014Mother's claim that the findings are void of any details about the Mother or her abilities is unpreserved, and it also lacks merit. 5 We "review the juvenile court's factual findings based upon the clearly erroneous standard." In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11 , 21 P.3d 680 . "[In order to overturn the juvenile court's decision, the result must be against the clear weight of the evidence or leave the appellate court with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made." In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, 112 , 171 P.3d 435 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014Mother's claim that the findings are void of any details about the Mother or her abilities is unpreserved, and it also lacks merit. 5 We "review the juvenile court's factual findings based upon the clearly erroneous standard." In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11 , 21 P.3d 680 . "[In order to overturn the juvenile court's decision, the result must be against the clear weight of the evidence or leave the appellate court with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made." In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, 112 , 171 P.3d 435 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014"The issue of whether a party has standing is primarily a question of law, which we review for correctness." Id. ¶ 4 (citing Washington County Water Conservancy Dist. v. Morgan, 2003 UT 58, ¶ 18 , 82 P.3d 1125 ).

2014"The issue of whether a party has standing is primarily a question of law, which we review for correctness." Id. ¶ 4 (citing Washington County Water Conservancy Dist. v. Morgan, 2003 UT 58, ¶ 18 , 82 P.3d 1125 ).

2025Here, the juvenile court found that Mother abandoned Ana because she “consciously disregarded . . . her parental obligations” and “her 20231136-CA and 20231141-CA 23 2025 UT App 20 In re I.C. conduct has led to the destruction of the parent-child relationship.” Id. ¶ 21.

2025Here, the juvenile court found that Mother abandoned Ana because she “consciously disregarded . . . her parental obligations” and “her 20231136-CA and 20231141-CA 23 2025 UT App 20 In re I.C. conduct has led to the destruction of the parent-child relationship.” Id. ¶ 21.

2015We are not persuaded and conclude that Mother's argument concerning reunification services was sufficiently preserved. 19 "We generally will not consider an issue unless it has been preserved for appeal." Patterson v. Patterson, 2011 UT 68, ¶ 12 , 266 P.3d 828 .

2015We are not persuaded and conclude that Mother's argument concerning reunification services was sufficiently preserved. 19 "We generally will not consider an issue unless it has been preserved for appeal." Patterson v. Patterson, 2011 UT 68, ¶ 12 , 266 P.3d 828 .

2025Accordingly, her claim for ineffective assistance of post-trial counsel fails. ¶26 In sum, for the reasons stated above, we affirm both the juvenile court’s adjudication order and the denial of Mother’s motion for new trial. 20240667-CA 10 2025 UT App 37

2025Therefore, the court properly denied Mother’s motion for new trial. 4 ¶18 Finally, Mother contends that her post-trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not attaching the actual proposed evidence to the motion for new trial and “by not sufficiently arguing how the missing evidence harmed Mother.” “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” In re A.H., 2021 UT App 57, ¶ 28 , 493 P.3d 81 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 496 P.3d 715 (Utah 2021).

2024“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Chesley v. Chesley, 2017 UT App 127 , ¶ 2 n.2, 402 P.3d 65 (quotation simplified). 20210637-CA 2 2024 UT App 54 Tilleman v. Tilleman parent” Child. 2 The motion alleged that Father “has exhibited intense anger toward [Mother] and has engaged in mental and emotional abuse,” that “such anger has been exhibited toward” Child, and that he “may be suffering from mental health conditions.” ¶6 Father opposed Mother’s rule 35 motion

2024“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Chesley v. Chesley, 2017 UT App 127 , ¶ 2 n.2, 402 P.3d 65 (quotation simplified). 20210637-CA 2 2024 UT App 54 Tilleman v. Tilleman parent” Child. 2 The motion alleged that Father “has exhibited intense anger toward [Mother] and has engaged in mental and emotional abuse,” that “such anger has been exhibited toward” Child, and that he “may be suffering from mental health conditions.” ¶6 Father opposed Mother’s rule 35 motion

2024Here, because we hold that Mother’s court-appointed counsel did not perform deficiently in not requesting ICPC compliance, Mother’s claim of ineffective assistance fails, and we need not address the prejudice prong of the inquiry. ¶56 “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance” is “highly deferential,” meaning the appellant must overcome the “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 .

2024CONCLUSION ¶49 Mother’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Utah juvenile court fails because the court’s jurisdiction commenced with the filing of the PSS petition, which resulted in limitations on Father’s 20220798-CA 19 2024 UT App 91 In re R.D. parent-time and the continued jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

2024“This difference does not stem from a different application of or exception to the final judgment rule, but rather 20230363-CA 6 2024 UT App 106 In re R.P. from the unique nature of juvenile court jurisdiction, which often continues after a final judgment is rendered.” Id. ¶10 As described above, the juvenile court entered an order on January 14, 2023, declaring Father’s paternity as to Child, granting Father’s intervention motion, and denying Mother’s motion to disregard genetic testing.

2024“This difference does not stem from a different application of or exception to the final judgment rule, but rather 20230363-CA 6 2024 UT App 106 In re R.P. from the unique nature of juvenile court jurisdiction, which often continues after a final judgment is rendered.” Id. ¶10 As described above, the juvenile court entered an order on January 14, 2023, declaring Father’s paternity as to Child, granting Father’s intervention motion, and denying Mother’s motion to disregard genetic testing.

2024To avoid perpetuating this misuse of terminology and to better capture the unique nature of the latter part of the rule, we refer to Mother’s rule 34(e) response as a “no-contest response,” per our recent decision, In re B.D., 2024 UT App 104, ¶ 12 . 20230310-CA 4 2024 UT App 147 In re J.M. abused and neglected.

2024To avoid perpetuating this misuse of terminology and to better capture the unique nature of the latter part of the rule, we refer to Mother’s rule 34(e) response as a “no-contest response,” per our recent decision, In re B.D., 2024 UT App 104, ¶ 12 . 20230310-CA 4 2024 UT App 147 In re J.M. abused and neglected.

2024Child very much and wants to be part of her life” and that there was “also no question that Mother is sincere in her desire to live a sober and productive life and that she is taking important steps to address her substance use issues.” Mother had voluntarily enrolled in a 90-day drug treatment program in early December 2022, but she had not graduated by the last day of trial in May 2023 in part due to her being sanctioned for testing positive for alcohol on one occasion. 20230543-CA 8 2024 UT App 185 In re D.A.T.R. ¶22 In its conclusions of law, the trial court first addressed Mother’s motion

2024“On appeal from a bench trial, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, and therefore recite the facts consistent with that standard.” Chesley v. Chesley, 2017 UT App 127 , ¶ 2 n.2, 402 P.3d 65 (quotation simplified). 20210637-CA 2 2024 UT App 54 Tilleman v. Tilleman parent” Child. 2 The motion alleged that Father “has exhibited intense anger toward [Mother] and has engaged in mental and emotional abuse,” that “such anger has been exhibited toward” Child, and that he “may be suffering from mental health conditions.” ¶6 Father opposed Mother’s rule 35 motion

2024Accordingly, “even if an omission is inadvertent and not due to a purposeful strategy, relief is not automatic.” State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 34 , 469 P.3d 871 (quotation simplified).

2024Accordingly, “even if an omission is inadvertent and not due to a purposeful strategy, relief is not automatic.” State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 34 , 469 P.3d 871 (quotation simplified).

2023Father opposed Mother’s motion for 20220645-CA 8 2023 UT App 126 In re A.S.G.-R. extended services, but the State did not register opposition.