Date: 11-15-2024

Case Style:

In the Matter of the Adoption of K.R.S., a person under 18 years of age

Case Number: 222600005

Judge: Sixth District Court, Manti Department, Sanpete County, Utah

Court:

Click Here For The Best Manti Family Law Lawyer Directory

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Manti Family Law Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Description:

Manti, Utah family law lawyers represented the parties in a parental rights termination and adoption action.

Father is the biological father of K.R.S. (Child), who was born in January 2019. For a time, Father cohabited with Child's mother, M.L. (Mother), but they never married; in October 2019, Mother married G.L. (Stepfather). Child has resided with Mother since birth, and with Mother and Stepfather since their marriage.

In 2021, Father filed a paternity action, and he eventually obtained a court order establishing himself as Child's father. Under the terms of the ensuing decree of paternity, Mother was awarded "sole legal custody" and "sole physical custody" of Child, and Father was awarded "less than statutory minimum supervised parent time." However, Father apparently did not fully exercise his parent-time rights; indeed, the district court in this case found that "Child has never been alone with" Father and that Father "made little to no effort to see or to establish a relationship with [Child], seeing [Child] in person only when his family members . . . requested a visit and via a rare video call."

In November 2022, Stepfather filed a petition for adoption in district court, asking for an order "establishing between" himself and Child "the legal relationships of parent and child." In his petition, Stepfather alleged that he had developed a "strong relationship" with Child and had become a father figure to him. Based on these facts and others, Stepfather asserted that it was in Child's best interest for Stepfather to adopt him. Notice of the pending adoption proceeding was served on Father, who responded by asking for leave to intervene in the proceeding. Stepfather did not oppose Father's request, and the court granted it, thus making Father a party to the adoption proceeding.

Meanwhile, Stepfather and Mother (collectively, Petitioners) filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights. They filed this petition in district court in the already-pending adoption action, and not as a separate proceeding. In their termination petition, Petitioners asserted that several statutory grounds existed to justify termination of Father's rights, including abandonment, neglect and abuse, unfitness, and token efforts. In addition, they asserted that it was in Child's best interest to have Father's parental rights terminated.

At the first hearing after the filing of the termination petition, the court found Father to be indigent, and the court later appointed an attorney from the local public defender's office to represent him. That attorney (Counsel) filed a document entitled "General Denial," which was apparently intended to function as an answer to the termination petition. At a hearing in March 2023, the court set a trial date for July 2023; Father confirmed, on the record, that the date worked for him. Father was also present at another hearing in April 2023; at that hearing, the court scheduled a final pretrial conference to occur on June 7.

At the June 7 hearing, Counsel appeared, but Father did not. Counsel asked to "withdraw as counsel" in the case because Father had "not [been] engaging with" Counsel. In particular, Counsel reported that he had been sending Father emails-which Counsel believed to be "an effective workable communication path" because he had communicated that way with Father in the past-and that Father had been quite sporadic in responding. In one of the responses Father did send, he indicated to Counsel that he had "hired another attorney," and Counsel reported that, since that email, Father had not answered any of his messages. Counsel lamented that he could "do no good for" Father if Father "does not work with" Counsel.

C.R.S. v. M.L. (In re K.R.S.), 2024 UT App 165, 20230712-CA (Utah App. Nov 15, 2024)

Outcome: Appeal dismissed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: