In re R.P.

2024 UT App 106

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF R.P.,
A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

K.J.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.

Opinion
No. 20230363-CA
Filed August 1, 2024

Fourth District Juvenile Court, American Fork Department
The Honorable Douglas Nielsen
No. 1202510

Emily Adams, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M.
Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce and Heath Haacke,
Guardians ad Litem

JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER authored this Opinion,
in which JUDGES DAVID N. MORTENSEN and AMY J. OLIVER
concurred.

CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:

¶1 R.P. (Child) was adjudicated as neglected as to her mother,
K.J. (Mother). Later, on the State of Utah’s motion and over
Mother’s objection, the juvenile court ordered Child’s biological
father (Father) to submit to genetic testing to establish his
paternity. Thereafter, based upon the test results, the court
entered an order declaring Father as Child’s biological father,
In re R.P.

granting Father’s motion to intervene in the proceeding, and
denying Mother’s motion to disregard genetic testing. Mother did
not appeal from this order. Instead, Mother now appeals from a
subsequent adjudication order determining that Child was not
abused, neglected, or dependent as to Father. However, her
appeal does not dispute the court’s adjudication order but rather
asserts that the court erred in recognizing Father’s paternity. We
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction as Mother failed to file
a timely notice of appeal following the entry of the court’s earlier
order declaring Father’s paternity of Child.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Child was born in 2016. At the time of Child’s birth,
Mother’s then-boyfriend, M.P. (Declared Father), who was
incarcerated, executed a voluntary declaration of paternity (the
VDP) and was listed on Child’s birth certificate as her father.
Declared Father died when Child was a little over a year old.
Mother then married another man, N.H., who has parented
Child since then. Child and her siblings were removed from
Mother and N.H.’s home in September 2021 based upon
allegations of abuse, neglect, and dependency. The juvenile court
adjudicated Child’s neglected status as to Mother a month later.
In December, before he and Mother were due in court for a
hearing, N.H. contacted Father asking for his help. According to
Father, it was at this point that he became aware of his potential
paternity. 1

¶3 Both Father and the State sought an order from the
juvenile court for genetic testing, and Father moved to
intervene in Child’s case. Mother opposed any genetic testing for

1. Mother disputes this. Mother alleges that Father knew he might
be Child’s biological father as early as 2016, when she was
pregnant with Child.

20230363-CA 2 2024 UT App 106
In re R.P.

Father, arguing that Declared Father was Child’s father and
though Declared Father had passed away, Father did not have a
statutory right to file for genetic testing. The State and Child’s
Guardian ad Litem (the GAL) argued for allowing the genetic
testing of Father, asserting it was proper under the law and in
Child’s best interest.

¶4 The juvenile court ordered genetic testing for Father and
Child, which revealed that Father was indeed Child’s biological
father. Father then asked the court to formally recognize him as
Child’s biological father. Mother objected and moved the juvenile
court to disregard the results of the paternity test. Mother argued
that under Utah Code section 78B-15-608(2), it would be in Child’s
best interest to disregard the genetic test results because “[i]t
would be an absolute detriment to now introduce [Child] to
[Father].” Father responded that because Child did not have a
father-child relationship with Declared Father, Utah law required
that as the biological father of Child, he must be adjudicated as
her father. See Utah Code § 78B-15-617. Specifically, Father argued
that the law relied on by Mother was inapplicable because
Declared Father was deceased and there was no parent-child
relationship between him and Child to disrupt. Moreover, Father
asserted, even if the law relied on by Mother was applicable,
analyzing the case based on the factors set forth in section 78B-15-
608(2) showed that disregarding the genetic test results would not
be in Child’s best interest.

¶5 The parties appeared before the juvenile court in December
2022. At that hearing, the court declared Father’s paternity as to
Child, granted Father’s intervention motion, and denied Mother’s
motion to disregard the genetic testing. An order prepared by the
State was signed by the court on December 14, 2022, and a formal
order prepared by Father’s counsel reflecting these rulings was
approved and entered on January 14, 2023. Mother did not appeal
from either order.

20230363-CA 3 2024 UT App 106
In re R.P.

¶6 The parties returned to the juvenile court on January 23,
2023. At this hearing, 2 the court adjudicated Child as to Father in
connection with an amended child welfare petition alleging
abuse, neglect, and dependency (amended by interlineation to
include Father as the “natural father” of Child). Father
affirmatively admitted that he was Child’s biological father, but
pursuant to rule 34(e) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure, he
neither admitted nor denied the remaining paragraphs of the
amended petition. The court then entered “no finding” as to him. 3

2. The juvenile court characterized this hearing as a permanency
hearing for Mother and N.H. and as a pretrial hearing for Father.
The court issued two separate orders from this hearing: a
Permanency Order entered on March 27, 2023, and Father’s
Adjudication, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order,
on April 24, 2023.

3. Because “[i]t is in the best interest and welfare of a child to be
raised under the care and supervision of [a] child’s natural
parents,” the State may intervene in a constitutionally protected
family unit only when a “parent is unable or unwilling to render
safe and proper parental care and protection.” Utah Code § 80-2a-
201(1)(c), (2). The State can take action for the welfare and
protection of a child by filing a child welfare petition alleging that
a child is abused, neglected, or dependent. See id. §§ 80-2a-201(2),
80-3-201. The juvenile court adjudicates the status of the child by
examining whether the allegations contained in the petition are
true. Id. § 80-3-402(1). There is only one determination to be made
by the juvenile court when it adjudicates a petition: has the State
proved by clear and convincing evidence that the child is abused,
neglected, or dependent as to the parent? If yes, the court
proceeds to disposition. Id. § 80-3-405. If no, and the parental
presumption is thus restored, the child must be returned to the
custody of the parent. Here, the juvenile court’s “no finding”
(continued…)

20230363-CA 4 2024 UT App 106
In re R.P.

At the hearing, the court returned custody of Child to Mother but
recognized that therapeutic intervention with Father was
required before it could award him custody of Child. The court
entered Father’s adjudication order on April 24, 2023. Mother
filed her notice of appeal on April 26, 2023, challenging the
juvenile court’s recognition of Father’s paternity.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 On appeal, Mother argues that the court erred in its
application of the paternity statute and that a declaration of
Father’s paternity more than six years after Declared Father filed
the VDP was time-barred under the applicable statute of
limitations. In response, the GAL argues that this court should not
reach the issues Mother raises on appeal because the juvenile
court’s January 2023 order was final and appealable and Mother’s
appellate challenge to the court’s declaration of Father’s paternity
is therefore untimely. Accordingly, before reaching the merits of
Mother’s arguments, we must first determine whether we have
jurisdiction to rule on her challenges. “Whether subject matter
jurisdiction exists is a threshold issue that we must resolve before
we may address [an] appellant’s substantive issues.” In re K.F.,
2009 UT 4, ¶ 21, 201 P.3d 985; see also State v. Brown, 2021 UT 11,
¶ 10, 489 P.3d 152 (“Jurisdiction is the blood in our judicial system.
Because of its vitalness, we have an independent obligation to
ensure that we have it over all matters before us.” (quotation
simplified)). “Questions about appellate jurisdiction are questions
of law that, by definition, arise for the first time in the appellate

necessarily meant that Child had to be returned to the custody of
the parent, because without a finding of parental unfitness due to
abuse, neglect, or dependency, the juvenile court does not have
jurisdiction to continue to make decisions regarding a child’s
welfare. See In re Z.D., 2006 UT 54, ¶ 57, 147 P.3d 401 (Wilkins, J.,
concurring).

20230363-CA 5 2024 UT App 106
In re R.P.

setting.” In re J.E., 2023 UT App 3, ¶ 15, 524 P.3d 1009 (quotation
simplified); see also Zion Village Resort LLC v. Pro Curb U.S.A. LLC,
2020 UT App 167, ¶ 21, 480 P.3d 1055. In addition, appellate courts
determine whether a court order is final as a matter of law. In re
B.B., 2002 UT App 82, ¶ 4, 45 P.3d 527, aff’d, 2004 UT 39, 94 P.3d
252. Because we agree that we lack jurisdiction in this case, we do
not reach the issues Mother raises in her appeal.

ANALYSIS

¶8 Mother appeals from Father’s adjudication order. This
court has original jurisdiction over appeals from the juvenile
court, see Utah Code § 78A-4-103(3)(c), and our rules of appellate
procedure provide that a party may appeal “a final order or
judgment,” Utah R. App. P. 3(a)(1). A notice of appeal in a
child welfare case must be filed within fifteen days after the
entry of the operative court order. See Utah Code § 78A-6-
359(2); see also Utah R. App. P. 52(a). If an appeal is not timely
filed, this court lacks jurisdiction over the issues raised. See In re
adoption of A.B., 2010 UT 55, ¶ 25, 245 P.3d 711 (“Utah appellate
courts lack jurisdiction over an appeal . . . if the notice of appeal is
not filed in strict compliance with Utah’s notice of appeal
requirements.”).

¶9 Generally, “a judgment is final when it ends the
controversy between the parties.” Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50,
¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649 (quotation simplified). And “the finality of an order
in juvenile proceedings is determined the same way as the finality
of an order in other courts.” In re S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 18, 154 P.3d
835 (quotation simplified). But Utah’s appellate courts have
determined that “in child welfare proceedings, unlike traditional
civil cases, appeals may be heard from more than one final
judgment.” In re A.C.M., 2009 UT 30, ¶ 10, 221 P.3d 185 (quotation
simplified). “This difference does not stem from a different
application of or exception to the final judgment rule, but rather

20230363-CA 6 2024 UT App 106
In re R.P.

from the unique nature of juvenile court jurisdiction, which often
continues after a final judgment is rendered.” Id.

¶10 As described above, the juvenile court entered an order on
January 14, 2023, declaring Father’s paternity as to Child, granting
Father’s intervention motion, and denying Mother’s motion to
disregard genetic testing. Several months later—on April 24,
2023—the court entered an adjudication order for Father. The
GAL asserts that the court’s January order was a final order
requiring its own notice of appeal, and that, consequently,
Mother’s challenge to the juvenile court’s declaration of Father’s
paternity from an appeal of Father’s adjudication order is
untimely. Both Mother and the State assert that the court’s
January order was merely an order granting Father’s intervention
and was therefore interlocutory in nature and not immediately
appealable as of right.4 As a result, they continue, Father’s April
adjudication order was the only final order in this case from
which Mother could take an appeal. See In re K.J., 2024 UT App 47,
¶ 53, 548 P.3d 886 (concluding that to properly appeal a
temporary order, the party wishing to challenge that order must
wait until the court has entered a final appealable order), cert.
denied, May 31, 2024 (No. 20240578). Thus, the question before us
is whether the court’s January parentage order was final and
appealable.

4. Mother and the State are correct that an order granting an
intervention motion is not a final order. “[A]n order denying a
motion to intervene is a final disposition of the claims asserted by
the applicant for intervention and is appealable.” Millard County
v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 823 P.2d 459, 461 (Utah 1991) (emphasis
added). “In contrast, the grant of a motion to intervene is an
interlocutory order that is not appealable as a matter of right.”
Berg v. Nelson, 2016 UT App 16, ¶ 2, 366 P.3d 860 (emphasis
added).

20230363-CA 7 2024 UT App 106
In re R.P.

¶11 A starting point for our analysis of whether a juvenile
court’s order is final is this court’s decision in In re A.F., 2006 UT
App 200, 138 P.3d 65, aff’d, 2007 UT 69, 167 P.3d 1070. There, this
court stated that “the determination of whether [an] . . . order is
final and appealable requires pragmatic analysis of the order
itself.” Id. ¶ 9. “Whether an order is final and appealable turns on
the substance and effect of the order.” Id. (quotation simplified).
When the effect of an order is “to immediately implement a
change in the permanent status of the [child] and . . . require[s] no
further judicial action to be final,” the action before the lower
court has concluded and the order may be appealed. In re A.F.,
2007 UT 69, ¶ 6. Our supreme court has held, for example, that
“termination of parental rights is final and appealable because it
constitutes a change in the child’s status in that it changes the
child’s legal relationship with his or her parents.” Id. ¶ 3.
Accordingly, “the determining factor in deciding” which orders
in a child welfare case are final and appealable as a matter of right
is whether the order “effects a change in the permanent status of
the child.” Id. An order that does not effect a change in a child’s
permanent status and serves “only as an interim determination
made in anticipation of additional proceedings” is not final and
appealable. Id. ¶ 4; see also In re A.T., 2015 UT 41, ¶ 13, 353 P.3d
131 (applying the test for finality); In re K.F., 2009 UT 4, ¶¶ 37–42,
201 P.3d 985 (same).

¶12 Applying these principles to the facts of this case, we agree
with the GAL that the January order declaring Father’s paternity
permanently affected and altered Child’s status as to her
biological father. Although Mother casts the order as only
granting Father’s motion to intervene, the actual issue decided by
the court was Father’s paternity. That determination brought him
into Child’s case, effectuating a permanent change in Child’s
status. Now, both Child and Father have constitutionally
protectable interests in their parent-child relationship. There was
no further action that needed to be taken by the court to recognize

20230363-CA 8 2024 UT App 106
In re R.P.

Father’s paternity. Father is Child’s legal father from now on. That
the court later held a hearing to make factual determinations on
the allegations contained in the underlying child welfare petition
and to assess Father’s parental fitness in relation to Child did not
mean that the court’s January order was not a final, legal
determination that altered Child’s status as to Father.
Accordingly, to challenge the juvenile court’s paternity
declaration, Mother was required to timely appeal from the
January parentage order. And because she did not timely appeal
that order, we do not have jurisdiction to address her arguments
on appeal.

CONCLUSION

¶13 The juvenile court’s January order declaring Father’s
paternity of Child was a final, appealable order. To challenge the
merits of the court’s paternity determination, Mother was
required to file a notice of appeal within fifteen days from the
entry of that order. Because she failed to do so, we dismiss this
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

20230363-CA 9 2024 UT App 106