Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Baby E.Z., the child of John Wyatt and the birth mother, who were never married, was born in Virginia. After the birth, the birth mother consented to an adoption, after which Wyatt initiated custody and visitation proceedings in a Virginia court. The prospective parents then filed a petition for adoption in Utah district court. Wyatt filed a motion in the Utah court contesting the adoption and requesting permission to intervene. The Utah court denied Wyatt's motion, holding that he had waived his rights to the child, that he could not intervene, and that his consent to the adoption was not required. Subsequently, the Virginia court issued an order granting Wyatt custody of the baby. On appeal, Wyatt argued that the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) deprived the Utah district court of jurisdiction over the adoption proceeding and required enforcement of the Virginia court order awarding him custody of the baby. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Wyatt's motion, holding (1) the PKPA applied to the adoption proceedings, but that Wyatt waived any claim under the PKPA by failing to raise the statute below; and (2) Wyatt failed to timely assert his parental rights under Utah law.

Victims-Appellants T.C. and N.C. are the minor victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by their adopted older brother Zachariah Clark. As part of the restitution ordered during sentencing, the trial court required the defendant to pay the costs of the victimsâ therapy. But as defendant was also sentenced to prison, he had no means to pay those costs. Because defendant was adopted through the Utah Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Appellants requested that DCFS be ordered to pay their treatment costs pursuant to state law. That request was ultimately denied. On appeal, Appellants raise several grounds for challenging the district courtâs refusal to order DCFS to pay for their treatment. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of these contentions because it found that the Appellants had no statutory right to appeal the decision.