J.D.K. v. State (In re S.M., et al.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, in the interest of S.M., K.K., A.K., M.K., M.K., J.K., J.K., K.K., M.K., R.K., and L.K., persons under eighteen years of age. ______________________________ J.D.K., Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20051033-CA F I L E D (June 2, 2006) 2006 UT App 224 ----Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department, 919778 The Honorable Elizabeth A. Lindsley Attorneys: Daniel V. Irvin, Salt Lake City, for Appellant Mark L. Shurtleff and Carol L.C. Verdoia, Salt Lake City, for Appellee Martha Pierce and Kristen G. Brewer, Salt Lake City, Guardians Ad Litem ----- Before Judges Greenwood, McHugh, and Orme. PER CURIAM: J.D.K. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court's permanency order returning some of Father's children to the care of their mother. This matter is before the court on the State and the Guardian ad Litem's motions to dismiss Father's petition on appeal because this court lacks jurisdiction due to the lack of a final appealable order as it relates to Father. A permanency order may be final and appealable if it "'ends the current juvenile proceedings, leaving no question open for further judicial action. An order which does not completely determine the rights of the parties . . . is merely interlocutory in nature.'" In re A.F., 2006 UT App 200,¶8 (quoting In re H.J., 1999 UT App 238,¶27, 986 P.2d 115). "[B]ecause permanency orders may contain a vast array of pronouncements," some portions of a permanency order may be appealable and some may not. Id. at ¶9. The determination of what aspects of a permanency order may be final and appealable "requires pragmatic analysis of the order itself." Id. "[O]rders merely continuing jurisdiction of the juvenile court, . . . orders giving only temporary custody to the State or an individual, . . . and orders which otherwise leave parental status unresolved [] anticipate further judicial action and determination of rights, and thus, are interlocutory in nature and cannot be appealed as a matter of right." Id. at ¶10 (citations omitted). We conclude that the permanency order is not final and appealable as it pertains to Father.1 No aspect of that order had the effect of completely or finally resolving the issues regarding Father. Thus, because the order left Father's parental status unresolved and anticipated further judicial action and determination of rights, the permanency order as applied to Father was not final and appealable. Accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction to resolve Father's appeal. When we lack jurisdiction, we retain "only the authority to dismiss the action." Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1989). We therefore dismiss the appeal.2 ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge ______________________________ Gregory K. Orme, Judge 1 We note that the Guardian ad Litem has filed an appeal from the same permanency order in case 200501030-CA. The issue concerning whether the permanency order is final and appealable as it pertains to the Guardian ad Litem remains subject to review by this court. 2 Because the issue concerning the appealability of permanency orders has only recently been clarified by this court, we also deny the State's request for attorney fees under rule 33 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. 20051033-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
