In Re R.B.F.S. (B.J.M. and
A.F.M. v. B.S.), 2012 UT 132, May 3, 2012
This case came to the Court of Appeals on Remand after
In re R.B.F.S., 2011 UT 46, Utah
Supreme Court August 2, 2011.
In August 2005, Father relinquished his parental rights and consented to
the adoption by Mother’s (then unknown) future spouse. The judge in the divorce matter rejected the
stipulation because there was no Stepfather at that time, and because a
relinquishment in District Court is only enforceable in conjunction with an
adoption.
In April 2007, Mother and her new husband filed a Petition for
adoption and incorporated Father’s relinquishment and Consent. They did not notify Father. The District Court terminated Father’s
parental rights. Father by way of letter
objected to the district court decision.
Judge Hilder treated the letter as a motion to reconsider and denied the
motion. Father appealed on several
grounds including jurisdiction. The
Court of Appeals set aside the termination and adoption because it found that
the trial court did not have jurisdiction.
Mother petitioned for cert. The
Supreme Court the district court did have jurisdiction and remanded the matter
to the Court of Appeals to consider Father’s other grounds.
Father asserts that the denial of the acceptance of the
relinquishment became the Law of the Case and should not have been overturned
by the second Judge. Father also
asserted that he should have been permitted to testify in regards to the Children’s’
best interests.
The Court of Appeals found that the law of the case doctrine does
not prohibit a court from reconsidering issues that have been decided, but
allows the court to decline to revisit decided issues. Because the record does not show the
existence of a completed adoption, the Court of Appeals declines to rule on the
Court’s failure to consider Father’s testimony because Father’s claim is not
yet ripe.
Finally, the Court found that the statute does not require a best
interest analysis on its face and that Father failed to assert any Constitutional
grounds to conduct such an analysis. The
Court takes considerable time in explaining its concern about the current Utah
adoption act and calls on legislators to revise the act.
Affirmed
No comments:
Post a Comment