S.T. v. State (In re F.T.)

S.T. v. State (In re F.T.)

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of F.T., a person under eighteen years of age.

______________________________

S.T.,

Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030488-CA
 

F I L E D
(April 15, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 113

 

-----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Sharon P. McCully

Attorneys: Jeffrey J. Noland, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem

-----

Before Judges Billings, Jackson, and Orme.

BILLINGS, Presiding Judge:

S.T. appeals from a trial in absentia(1) at which his parental rights were terminated. We affirm.

S.T. first contends that the trial court erred by admitting the State's requests for admissions under Utah Rule of Juvenile Procedure 20A(g) after S.T. failed to respond in a timely manner. "When requests for admissions are properly served, and no written answer or objection has been submitted, the result is automatic--the requests for admissions, as a matter of law, are deemed admitted by simple operation of the rule." In re E.R., 2000 UT App 143,¶10, 2 P.3d 948. S.T. does not dispute that the State's requests were served properly and that he did not answer them. Thus, the trial court did not err when it admitted the State's requests for admissions.

S.T. also argues that "[i]n light of the seriousness and finality of the permanent deprivation of parental rights, the trial court should not have based its decision upon the admission[s]." We disagree. The potential harshness of rule 20A(g) is mitigated by the fact that "[u]pon a showing of good cause, any matter deemed admitted may be withdrawn or amended upon the court's own motion or the motion of any party." Utah R. Juv. P. 20A(g); see also In re E.R., 2001 UT App 143 at ¶13. S.T. neither objected when the trial court admitted the State's requests for admissions nor subsequently moved the trial court to withdraw the admissions. Thus, S.T. did not preserve the issue of whether the trial court erred by failing to withdraw the admissions. See Bair v. Axiom Design, L.L.C., 2001 UT 20,¶30, 20 P.3d 388 ("[T]o preserve an issue on appeal a party must first raise the issue before the trial court."); In re E.R., 2001 UT App 143 at ¶15 (recognizing that a party must either formally move the court to withdraw admissions or take some action "more or less commensurate with a motion to withdraw" to preserve the issue on appeal).

In any event, the trial court had ample evidence, independent of the State's requests for admissions, by which it could have found that S.T.'s parental rights should be terminated. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

1. Although the trial court used the word "default," it is clear from the record that what occurred was a trial in absentia. While S.T. was not present for the trial, he was represented by counsel.