Appellate Procedure: Parties Cannot Stipulate Around Mootness

In Re L.O. (Navajo Nation v. State), 2012 UT 23, April 13, 2012

L.O. was a minor child and member of the Navajo Nation.  DCFS removed L.O. from the child’s parents and placed with a foster family.  L.O.’s parents relinquished their parental rights, and a Petition for Adoption was filed.  The Navajo Nation objected to the adoption and moved to transfer jurisdiction to the Nation.  The Juvenile Court denied the motion because the Nation had waited too long, and allowed the foster parents to adopt.  The Nation Appealed.

Before the Appeal could be heard, the Nation consented to the adoption.  However, DCFS and the Nation agreed that the issues would not be mooted and that the appeal could go forward because of the important public policy grounds.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the case because the issues were moot.  The Nation petitioned cert which resulted in this opinion.  The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and found that the parties cannot stipulate around mootness.  In short, if the issue is dead, the parties cannot resurrect the issue by agreeing that it is alive.  This case also failed to qualify for moot-review because that is likely to evade review because of the short duration of the claim at issue.

Full opinion available at:  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/AdoptLO1223041312.pdf

No Constitutional Right to Counsel in Civil Contempt Cases

Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. ____ (2011).

Turner had been found in contempt five times for failure to pay child support.  The fifth time Turner did not pay the amount owing and served 6 months.  After his release, the court issued another order to show cause and sentenced him to 12 months in jail without making a finding as to Turner's ability to pay.  He appealed.

Turner argued that he should have been provided counsel at the show cause hearing because there was a chance that he would be subject to incarceration.

The Supreme Court found that due process requirements are met and punishment can be imposed if the alleged contemnor is found to have had notice of the order, ability to comply with the order and willful noncompliance with the order.  No further safeguards are required, and if those safeguards are preserved the Court may impose jail time.

Full Decision available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8203402461706269179&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr