The Navajo Nation v. State (In re L.O.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, in the interest of L.O., a person under eighteen years of age. ______________________________ The Navajo Nation, Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20090811-CA F I L E D (November 27, 2009) 2009 UT App 349 ----Third District Juvenile, West Jordan Department, 533956 The Honorable James R. Michie Jr. Attorneys: Keith Andrew Fitzgerald, Moab, for Appellant Mark L. Shurtleff and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Bench, Davis, and McHugh. PER CURIAM: The Navajo Nation appeals the juvenile court's order denying its renewed motion to transfer jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal. Appeals may be taken from final orders and judgments. See Utah R. App. P. 3(a). The Utah Supreme Court has explained that "[t]he finality of an order in juvenile proceedings is determined the same way as the finality of an order in other courts." In re A.F., 2007 UT 69, ¶ 3, 167 P.3d 1070. In order for a juvenile court's order to be a final, appealable order, the order must "end the current juvenile proceedings, leaving no question open for further judicial action." Id. "In the child welfare arena, the determining factor in deciding if an order is final and appealable is whether it effects a change in the permanent status of the child." Id. Thus, a child welfare order is appealable only if it effects a change in the permanent status of the child. See id. ¶ 4. The August 25, 2009 order denying the renewed motion to transfer jurisdiction did not change the permanent status of L.O. and "served only as an interim determination made in anticipation of additional proceedings." Id. Because further judicial action is required to change L.O.'s permanent status, the order denying the motion to transfer jurisdiction is not a final, appealable order. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Utah R. App. P. 3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final order. ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Judge ______________________________ James Z. Davis, Judge ----I CONCUR IN THE RESULT: ______________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge 20090811-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.
