DCFS Guidelines Are Neither Administrative Rules Nor Statute

K.Y. v. DCFS, (Utah Court of Appeals November 26, 2010).

Juvenile Court found K.Y., a teacher, neglected the student according to DCFS Guidelines’ definition of emotional maltreatment.  The teacher taped the student’s wrists to her desk with a six inch piece of scotch tape for two minutes as a method of discipline.

 

The Guidelines were neither promulgated as rules nor codified in statute and as such were neither rules nor statute and do not have the force of law.  The Juvenile Court based its entire ruling on only the DCFS guidelines, and never considered the statutory definitions of abuse or neglect.

 

The Court of Appeals found that K.Y.’s actions did not meet the statutory definition of neglect.  Additionally, there was insufficient evidence for any finding of abuse, and the JV court did not evaluate whether the teacher’s actions were a form of reasonable discipline.

In short, the JV Court did not use the correct analysis.  Under the correct analysis, K.Y.’s actions were neither neglect nor abuse.  The ruling of the JV court is Reversed.

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_ky112610.pdf

Subject Orders are Not Final Appealable Orders

In re JMS and JRS, C.S.S. v. Stat e of Utah, (Utah Court of Appeals November 18, 2010).

Juvenile Court entered an order removing Father’s (C.S.S.) children from his home, but stayed the implementation of the order allowing Father to keep his children in his home if he complied with DCFS recommendations.  Father failed to comply, the stay was lifted, and the children were removed from the home.  Father filed an interlocutory appeal, which was denied.  He then filed this standard appeal.

The Court of Appeals found that the removal of the stay was not a final appealable order.  A final order is one that leaves no question open for further judicial action or effects a change in the permanent status of the child.  Removal of children from Father’s home was what the court considered a mere fact that did not indicate finality.  Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Concurrence: Judge Thorne reiterated the Opinion of In re A.R., 982 P.2d 73 (Utah 1999), children should not be removed as punishment for failure to comply with court orders.  He additionally addressed the Constitutional concerns that children might be removed from a parent’s home without a final order leaving the parent without means for appeal.  However, Judge Thorne concluded that the interlocutory appeals system appropriately addresses this concern.  However, he noted that these appeals are discretionary and not allowed as a right of the parent.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_jms111810.pdf

Appellate Brief Must Provide Basis for Appeal

Morford v. DCFS, 2010 UT App. 285, (Utah Court of Appeals October 15, 2010).

The trial court entered summary judgment for DCFS on the Mofords’ negligence and breach of contract claim based on DCFS’s failure to provide reunification services between the Morfords and their foster son prior to the relinquishment of parental rights and DCFS’s alleged misinformed report that the foster son no longer wanted to live with the Morfords.  The Morfords appealed.

The Court of Appeals refused to evaluate the merits of the Morfords’ claims because of severe failings in their appellate brief.  The brief’s table of authorities did not correspond to the brief.  It was as if the submitted table was for a different brief.  The brief failed to supply the text of the statute on which the Morfords were relying.  It failed to cite the preservation of the issues in the trial court record.  It failed to provide an adequate record to even address the Morfords’ claims.  The argument section cites authority, but does not apply the authority to the facts of the Morfords’ claims.  Because of the failure of the brief, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/morford101510.pdf

Alimony Must be Based on Sufficient Findings and Alimony Cannot Exceed Needs

Fish v. Fish, 2010 UT App. 292, (Utah Court of Appeals October 21, 2010).

Wife was awarded $800 per month in alimony.  Husband appealed.  He argued that the trial court had insufficient evidence to make findings as to the parties’ ability to earn and their needs.  The Court of Appeals found that testimony alone is sufficient evidence for imputation of income, and that Husband’s enrollment in a Technical College did not preclude imputation of income.  If a party already has basic job skills, he cannot rely on the schooling to avoid the imputation of income.  However, the findings of the trial court did not support the level of income imputed to husband as required by U.C.A. 78B-12-203(7)(b) (2008).  Without such findings, the trial court cannot impute income.  Additionally, the trial court made no findings as to Husband’s ability to pay and therefore the alimony award was an abuse of discretion and reversed.  The Court also found ability to earn cannot be based on monthly income alone, but must be based on the U.C.A. 78B-12-203(7)(b) factors, reversing the trial court’s finding that wife’s ability to earn directly correlates with her current income. 

Lastly, simply because the parties combined needs exceed their combined incomes does not prove that the parties’ standard of living is not commensurate with the standard of living at the time of the marriage, it simply proves that the cost to sustain two households is greater than the cost to sustain one.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/fish102110.pdf

Stability Is Key Factor in Deciding Best Interests of Special Needs Children

Grindstaff v. Grindstgaff, 2010 UT App. 261, (Utah Court of Appeals September 23, 2010).

Mother appealed the trial court’s award of custody to Father.  Mother and Father had two children, one with special needs.  The trial court found that the parties had been equally engaged in raising the parties’ minor children.  The trial court found that while stability was important for all the children, it was critically important to the parties’ special needs child. Because Mother had planned to move to Nevada, the trial court awarded custody to Father. Mother’s claim for joint custody was likewise denied because of the critical need for stability.

Wife also appealed the trial court’s refusal to admit testimony her expert.  At trial, Wife’s counsel conceded that the expert was not a custody evaluator; as such, any findings by her expert could not be used to rebut the custody evaluator’s findings. 

Finally, as to Wife’s denied attorney fees that were denied at trial because Father did not have the ability to pay the attorney fees,  the Court of Appeals found that while the trial court has a duty to hold a party in contempt, it also has great discretion in crafting a punishment to ensure compliance.

Affirmed on all issues.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/grindstaff092310.pdf

ABA's Blawg 100

ABA is working on their list of the 100 best legal blogs, and they would like your advice on which blawgs they should include. Fill out the Blawg 100 Amici form and tell them you like the http://utahfamilyblawg.blogspot.com/

Thanks,

Grant

Trial Court has Discretion to Determine the Weight of the Evidence

Richins v. Richins, 2010 UT App. 253, (Memorandum Decision, Utah Court of Appeals September 16, 2010).

Trial Court determined wife’s income based on a loan application The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court has discretion in assigning weight to various pieces of evidence.  In this case, the trial court gave more weight to the 2004 loan application (which on cross, Wife testified that she agreed with everything in the application), than to either a 2003 loan application in which Wife listed a lower income and her handwritten unsigned, and undated document created by Wife in anticipation of litigation.  The trial court has discretion to determine the weight of the evidence, and can only be overturned if it is clearly erroneous, the Court of Appeals Affirmed the trial court’s findings; particularly in light of the trial court’s additional findings that Wife had repeated lied to get what she wanted.

The Court additionally found that dividing the marital estate exactly in half meets the requirement that property distribution be equitable.

Lastly, because Husband was awarded attorney fees at trial and because he prevailed on appeal, his request for attorney fees for the appeal was granted.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/mds/richins091610.pdf