L.M. v. V.C.
L.M. v. V.C.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
¶ 1 L.M. and R.W.M. (Paternal Grandparents) appeal the juvenile court’s denial of their petition for guardianship of J.M. as well as the juvenile court’s grant of temporary guardianship to V.C. and her husband (Maternal Grandparents).
¶ 2 Paternal Grandparents assert several issues on appeal.
¶3 Utah Code section 78-3a-104 sets forth the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-104 (Supp. 2005). Subsection (l)(f) grants the juvenile court jurisdiction over the termination of the parent-child relationship. See id. § 78-3a-104(l)(f). Further, the juvenile court has jurisdiction over the “appointment of a guardian of the person or other guardian of a minor who comes within the court’s jurisdiction under other provisions of this section.” Id. § 78-3a-104(l)(e). It is undisputed that the Maternal Grandparents filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of J.M.’s father, thereby invoking the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.
¶ 4 Paternal Grandparents also appear to state an insufficiency of the evidence claim by arguing that the juvenile court erred in awarding guardianship to the Maternal Grandparents instead of the Paternal Grandparents despite the case being a “close call.” We “review the juvenile court’s factual findings based upon the clearly erroneous standard.” In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680. “The juvenile court in particular is given ‘wide latitude of discretion as to the ■ judgments arrived at’ based upon not only the court’s opportunity to judge credibility firsthand, but also based on the juvenile court judges’ ‘special training, experience and interest in this field, and ... devot[ed] ... attention to such matters....’” Id. (citations omitted). While the juvenile court acknowledged that both Paternal Grandparents
¶ 5 Affirmed.
¶ 6 I CONCUR IN THE RESULT: WILLIAM A. THORNE JR., Judge.
. One such issue is not properly raised in this appeal, as it focuses on whether the juvenile court properly terminated the parental rights of J.M.'s father. Paternal Grandparents do not have standing to raise such an issue in this appeal.
. The father filed a separate appeal concerning the termination of his parental rights, which we have addressed in 2006 UT App 158.
.Additionally, the Maternal Grandparents had previously filed a motion for a protective order over J.M. and a petition for appointment of guardian that also invoked the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The Paternal Grandparents also invoked the jurisdiction of the juvenile court by filing their own petition for appointment of guardian.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In the matter of the ADOPTION OF J.M., a minor. L.M. and R.W.M. v. V.C.
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published