State of Utah, in the interest of L.L.W.

State of Utah, in the interest of L.L.W., a person under eighteen years of age, Case No. 990967-CA, Filed June 29, 2000 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of L.L.W.,
a person under eighteen years of age.

State of Utah,
Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

W.R.W.,
Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990967-CA

F I L E D
June 29, 2000
  2000 UT App 206 -----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Joseph W. Anderson

Attorneys:
Russell D. Smith, Draper, for Appellant
Jan Graham and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Davis, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

W.R.W. appeals the November 8, 1999 order terminating his parental rights. In determining whether a parent is unfit or has neglected a child, the trial court shall consider whether the parent is incarcerated as a result of a felony conviction and whether "the sentence is of such length that the child will be deprived of a normal home for more than one year." Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-408(2)(e) (1999).

The parties concede that the requirements of this section are met. W.R.W. was convicted of a felony and, in May 1998, began serving his sentence of five years to life. His first parole hearing is set for February 2001.

W.R.W. contends that although the requirements of section 78-3a-408(2)(e) have been satisfied, the juvenile court's refusal to allow him to conduct discovery was prejudicial to his ability to rebut evidence that termination was in L.L.W.'s best interests. We disagree. W.R.W.'s discovery requests were untimely and he made no attempt to explain why the requests were late when the State objected to them. Moreover, the information W.R.W. claims he needed through discovery was already available to him. The record suggests that the State sent its witness list a month before trial giving W.R.W. notice of witnesses it intended to call. The trial transcript shows that W.R.W. was given the opportunity to cross-examine the foster mother, but declined to do so. Similarly, there is no indication that W.R.W. attempted to secure or introduce an expert witness or that the unnamed expert's alleged testimony would have been admissible.

The evidence supports the trial court's decision to terminate W.R.W.'s parental rights. Accordingly, the decree of termination is affirmed.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge