T.T. v. State (In re R.T.)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, in the interest of R.T., a person under eighteen years of age. ______________________________ T.T., Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20080097-CA F I L E D (April 3, 2008) 2008 UT App 124 ----Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department, 445522 The Honorable Kimberly K. Hornak Attorneys: Julie George, Salt Lake City, for Appellant Mark L. Shurtleff and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee Martha Pierce and Kristin Fadel, Salt Lake City, Guardians Ad Litem ----- Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme. PER CURIAM: T.T. (Father) appeals the termination of his parental rights in R.T. Father does not dispute the juvenile court's findings or conclusions, admitting that the facts and law were correctly determined. He asserts, however, that the termination of his rights was unfair because he loves his son. This assertion fails to present a legal issue for review on appeal. Because Father concedes there was no juvenile court error, we affirm. Furthermore, the termination of Father's rights was not unfair to him. Father has been imprisoned for most of R.T.'s life and has not seen him since he was one year old. Father does not have any relationship with R.T. Father is not eligible for release until 2010. His continued incarceration is of such a length that it will deprive R.T. of a normal home for more than one year, fully supporting the termination of his parental rights. Accordingly, because Father is unfit, the primary concern is R.T.'s best interests and what is fair to him, which is freeing him for adoption and permanency. Even though Father loves R.T., it is R.T.'s interests that are paramount at this point. Affirmed. ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Judge ______________________________ James Z. Davis, Judge ______________________________ Gregory K. Orme, Judge 20080097-CA 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.