Follow us:
Capital University Law School
The National Center for Adoption Law & Policy proudly announce the seventh annual Child Welfare & Adoption Law Moot Court Competition
March 9-10, 2012
Columbus, Ohio
This
year's problem is "Rethinking Permanency for Older Youth" and 21 teams
from law schools around the country have registered to compete. We are in need of several attorneys to volunteer to judge the competition rounds and hope you might be interested.
You may view the times for the rounds and also register to judge via the competition webpage at:
http://law.capital.edu/mootcourt.aspx.
|
ADOPTION
Cite: No. S-13838, 2012 Alas. LEXIS 6 (Alas. Jan. 13th, 2012)
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
UTAH: K.F. v. State (State ex rel. S.F.)
The Court of Appeals of Utah affirmed the Fourth
District Juvenile Courts decision terminating the parental rights of
appellant-father, holding that the lower court retained jurisdiction and
dispositional authority over appellant-fathers children even after
restoring them to appellants legal custody, and that it was in the
childrens best interest to later terminate those rights. The court
stated that under Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-103, once a child has been
adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent, the court retains
dispositional authority over the children as long as the court does not
dismiss the case or terminate jurisdiction. Here, the court returned the
children to appellant, but did not terminate the case and, therefore,
retained subject matter jurisdiction when the children were subsequently
returned to the departments custody. Because the lower court retained
jurisdiction over the children and did not alter the childrens status
as neglected, it was not required to restart the child welfare
proceedings upon their return to the departments custody. The court was
also not required to re-adjudicate the children before later
terminating appellants parental rights. The appeals court also
determined that the lower court did not violate appellants due process
rights by denying his request for additional reunification services,
holding that appellant had already received a years worth of services
and that the court had discretion to deny such request under Utah Code
Ann. § 78A-6-312. The court, in addition, rejected appellants argument
that he was entitled to a permanency hearing within 30 days of
dispositional hearing, as his rights were terminated before the deadline
passed. Finally, the court of appeals found sufficient evidence to
support the finding that appellant was unfit, based on the fact that he
refused to cease contact with the childrens mother, and further put the
children in violent situations. Additionally, the court found that the
childrens emotional and mental needs were properly considered in
determining that termination of appellants rights was in their best
interest.
Cite: No. 20090484-CA; 2012 UT App. 10; 2012 Utah App. LEXIS 10 (Utah Ct. App. January 12th, 2012)
Cite: No. 20090484-CA; 2012 UT App. 10; 2012 Utah App. LEXIS 10 (Utah Ct. App. January 12th, 2012)
CHILD PROTECTION/Custody
NEBRASKA: State v. Marcos A. (In re Marcos S.A.)
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the Juvenile Court of Douglas Countys order granting permanent custody of the children to the biological mother and relieving the court of jurisdiction over the children, holding that appellant-fathers procedural due process rights had been violated. The court held that, under In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232, notice must be reasonably calculated to inform a person of the subject and issues involved in a proceeding in order to satisfy due process requirements. The court also stated that an interested party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to confront witnesses and present evidence. Here, the parties participated in seven review and permanent placement hearings with respect to the children. At the final hearing, the lower court, on its own motion, awarded permanent custody to the mother, although no party was informed that the issue of custody would be determined at that time. The Nebraska Court of Appeals found that although the lower court had jurisdiction to determine the custody of the children, it was not properly done at that hearing as appellant had not been given proper notice.
Cite: No. A-11-335; 19 Neb. App. 426; 2011 Neb. App. LEXIS 186 (Neb. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2011)
ADOPTION/Rights of Biological Relatives
Cite: No. A11A2247, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 37 (Ga. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2012)
Link to Full Opinion
The preceding are summaries of
No comments:
Post a Comment