M.W. v. State (In re S.W.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, in the interest of S.W. and N.W., persons under eighteen years of age. ______________________________ M.W., Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20060620-CA F I L E D (October 13, 2006) 2006 UT App 421 ----Third District Juvenile, West Jordan Department, 178673 The Honorable C. Dane Nolan Attorneys: Gary L. Bell, South Jordan, for Appellant Mark L. Shurtleff, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee Martha Pierce and James R. Michie Jr., Salt Lake City, Guardians Ad Litem ----- Before Judges Bench, Greenwood, and Thorne. PER CURIAM: M.W. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court's order requiring that his visits with his children be therapeutically supervised. This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless it is taken from a final judgment or order, see Utah R. App. P. 3(a), or qualifies for an exception to the final judgment rule, see Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97,¶¶10, 15, 37 P.3d 1070. An order is final only if it disposes of the case as to all parties and "finally dispose[s] of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits of the case." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50,¶9, 5 P.3d 649 (quotations and citation omitted); see also In re H.J., 1999 UT App 238,¶27, 986 P.2d 115 ("A final, appealable order is one that 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." (alteration and omission in original) (quotations and citation omitted)). Father appeals from the juvenile court's order requiring therapeutically supervised visitations with his children pending his parental termination hearing. The order appealed from is not a final appealable order because it does not completely determine the rights of the parties. Further, no exceptions to the final judgment rule apply in this case. See Loffredo, 2001 UT 97 at ¶15. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. When this court lacks jurisdiction, it must dismiss the appeal. See id. at ¶11. The appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Presiding Judge ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge 20060620-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.
