R.A.W. and E.W.G. v. Eighth Dist

----ooOoo----

In the matter of the adoption of R.C., a minor.
______________________________

R.A.W. and E.W.G.,
Petitioners and Appellants,

v.

Eighth District Court, Vernal,
Respondent and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010983-CA

F I L E D
December 12, 2002 2002 UT App 411 -----

Eighth District, Vernal Department
The Honorable John R. Anderson

Attorneys:
R.A.W., Celesta, BC, Canada, for Appellants
Brent M. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Jackson, Greenwood, and Thorne.

JACKSON, Presiding Judge:

R.A.W. ("Witbeck") purports to challenge the district court's denial of his request to unseal information relating to his adoption. However, the district court made no such denial because Witbeck failed to file a formal petition to unseal the adoption file, as required by rule 6-406(1) of the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration.(1)See Utah R. Jud. Admin. 6-406(1).

Instead, he filed a motion to obtain copies of the adoption decree under subsection (3) of rule 6-406, which allows an adoptee to "obtain a certified copy of the decree of adoption by filing a motion and affidavit stating the purpose of the request." See id. § 6-406(3). The purpose of Witbeck's request was to verify the case number of his adoption.

On June 25, 2001, Gordon, a court clerk, sent a letter to Witbeck, which said that "the judge" denied his request.(2) In response, through his unlicenced representative, Witbeck sent a letter of his own to the court, referred to rule 6-406(3), and objected to the denial of his request. The district court then issued to him a copy of the adoption decree with the sealed birth parents' information redacted. Witbeck appeals, alleging that Gordon's letter of June 25 constitutes a denial of his request to unseal the adoption file.

"An appellate court generally will not review any issue that was not raised in the court below. . . . Moreover, even if an issue is raised before the trial court, '[t]his Court cannot consider an appeal in the absence of a final order, signed by the court and supported, when appropriate, by findings of fact and conclusions of law.'" Ellis v. Swensen, 2000 UT 101,¶¶30-31, 16 P.3d 1233 (citation omitted). Witbeck failed to file a formal petition to unseal his adoption files, as required by rule 6-406(1) of the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration. See Utah R. Jud. Admin. 6-406(1). Thus, he failed to properly raise this issue in the court below. Moreover, the letter Witbeck attempts to appeal from is not "a final order, signed by the court." Ellis, 2000 UT 101 at ¶31. We note, however, that nothing precludes Witbeck from properly filing a formal petition to unseal the adoption file under rule 6-406(1) of the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration. A denial of that petition signed by the court would constitute a final order from which Witbeck may appeal. Until such time as there is a denial of a properly filed petition, his arguments are not properly before this court, and we dismiss his appeal.
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Presiding Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. This rule provides: Except as set forth in paragraph (3), all requests to open sealed adoption files to obtain identifying information of adoptee or birth parents shall be initiated by filing a formal petition with the clerk of the court in the county where the adoption was granted. The petition must set forth in detail the reasons the information is desired and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. Utah R. Jud. Admin. 6-406(1).

2. The clerk apparently mistook Witbeck's rule 6-406(3) motion for an insufficient rule 6-406(1) petition to unseal his adoption file.