S.A.M. v. State DCFS

S.A.M. v. State DCFS

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

S.A.M.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

State of Utah, Division of Child and Family Services,

Respondent and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040049-CA
 

F I L E D
(September 10, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 315

 

-----

Seventh District Juvenile, Moab Department

The Honorable Mary Manley

Attorneys: S.A.M., Portland, Oregon, Appellant Pro Se

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

-----

Before Judges Billings, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    S.A.M. appeals the ruling on his petition seeking removal of his name from the licensing database maintained by the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS).

    S.A.M. petitioned the juvenile court for removal of his name from the Licensing Information System maintained by DCFS. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 62A-4a-116.6 (Supp. 2003); 78-3a-320(3)(2002) (authorizing petition for removal of name from Licensing Information System). Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court entered an order upholding the substantiation for severe child abuse or neglect, based upon stipulated facts and additional findings of fact.

    We review the juvenile court's findings of fact under a "clearly erroneous" standard. Utah R. App. P. 52(a). "An appellant seeking to challenge the juvenile court's findings must first marshal the evidence in support of those findings and then demonstrate that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the court's ruling, is insufficient." In re W.A., 2002 UT 127,¶43, 63 P.3d 607. "When an appellant fails to properly discharge his duty to marshal, we assume that 'the evidence introduced at trial adequately supported the findings, and, accordingly, affirm the findings as written.'" In re L.M., 2001 UT App 314,¶15, 37 P.3d 1188 (citation omitted). S.A.M. failed to provide a transcript of the substantiation hearing and, as a result, failed to marshal the evidence in support of his challenge to the juvenile court's findings of fact. In addition, the juvenile court's order was partially based on stipulated facts. Because S.A.M. failed to marshal the evidence and demonstrate that any finding is clearly erroneous, we affirm the findings.

    S.A.M. contends that DCFS violated the scheduling order by failing to provide him with discovery. He claims that, as a sanction, the State should not have been allowed to present its witnesses and should have been ordered to remove his name from the licensing database. There is no support for this claim in the record because S.A.M. failed to provide a transcript of the substantiation hearing. In addition, the juvenile court's minutes indicate that counsel for DCFS submitted proof of the service of discovery, after which the juvenile court overruled S.A.M.'s objection. S.A.M. presented no basis in the juvenile court record supporting his claims that the trial court erred in denying a request for sanctions, even assuming such a request was properly before it.

    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge