State of Utah, in the interest of R.R.

Annotate this Case
R.R. v. State. Filed December 9, 1999 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of R.R.,
a person under eighteen years of age.
__________________________________________________
C.R. and J.R.,
Appellants,

v.

State of Utah,
Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990809-CA

F I L E D
December 9, 1999


1999 UT App 363 -----

Second District Juvenile, Farmington Department
The Honorable Stephen A. Van Dyke

Attorneys:
Steven C. Russell and G. Brent Smith, Salt Lake City, for Appellants
Jan Graham, Carol L. Verdoia, and John Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Bench, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

An issue on appeal is moot when "the requested judicial relief cannot affect the rights of the litigants." State v. Sims, 881 P.2d 840, 841 (Utah 1994) (citations omitted). Our review of the record reveals that on August 24, 1999, the juvenile court dismissed the State's neglect petition. Because of this dismissal, the August 1999 orders denying appellants' motions to dismiss the State's petition, which appellants seek to appeal, are moot.

It is not the practice of this court to issue advisory opinions, but we will consider moot issues if the case "presents an issue of public import that is likely to recur and is capable of evading judicial review." In re N.R., 967 P.2d 951, 952 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). Though the issues appellants seek to raise are important, they are not likely to evade judicial review. Parents in similar situations have the option to file a petition for extraordinary writ. Cf. In re S.K., 378 Utah Adv. Rep. 11, 12 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (stating DCFS could have filed petition for extraordinary relief challenging trial court's failure to follow mandate of reunification services statute). Here an extraordinary writ was not necessary because the juvenile court ordered R.R. returned home shortly after his removal in response to appellants' motion for temporary restraining order and writ of assistance.

Accordingly, we conclude appellants' claims are moot, and, as such, we dismiss their appeal.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge