2017 UT App 197

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF J.S.,

A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

N.P.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Opinion

No. 20170622-CA

Filed October 26, 2017

Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Charles D. Behrens

No. 1138567

Colleen K. Coebergh, Attorney for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M. 

Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

Virginia L. Sudbury and Alison Satterlee, Attorneys 

for Father P.S.

Before JUDGES DAVID N. MORTENSEN, JILL M. POHLMAN, and 

DIANA HAGEN.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 N.P. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s July 10, 

2017 order granting permanent custody and guardianship of her

child to the child’s Father and terminating the jurisdiction of the 

court. Mother argues that she was denied effective assistance of 

counsel and that she was denied a reasonable accommodation 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA).
In re J.S.

20170622-CA 2 2017 UT App 197

¶2 Mother first asserts that she was denied effective 

assistance of counsel. By statute, an indigent parent is entitled to 

appointment of counsel in a child welfare action. See Utah Code 

Ann. § 78A-6-1111(1)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2017). In this case, 

Mother was appointed counsel, later requested and obtained 

appointment of substitute counsel, and ultimately chose to 

represent herself with the assistance of appointed standby 

counsel. Mother does not identify any conduct by any one of her 

three appointed attorneys that supports a traditional ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim. Mother also fails to demonstrate that 

there is a reasonable probability that but for any deficiency in 

her attorneys’ actions the case would have been resolved 

differently. Accordingly, Mother has failed to demonstrate that 

she was denied effective assistance of counsel.1

¶3 Mother next argues that she was denied reasonable 

accommodations under the ADA. However, Mother has failed to 

demonstrate that she preserved such a claim by requesting an

accommodation. “[I]n order to preserve an issue for appeal, the 

issue must be presented to the trial court in such a way that the 

 

1. To the extent Mother is challenging the juvenile court’s 

decision to allow counsel to withdraw and Mother to proceed 

pro se, Mother has failed to provide the court with an adequate 

record to review such claims. Mother has not provided a 

transcript of any hearing in which her right to counsel was 

discussed or in which the juvenile court resolved any of the 

motions to withdraw as counsel. Nor has Mother provided a 

transcript of the hearing in which Mother requested to proceed 

pro se. Without such transcripts, the court cannot evaluate 

Mother’s claims. See Bevan v. J.H. Construction Co., 669 P.2d 442, 

443 (Utah 1983) (stating that “[i]n the absence of a transcript, we 

assume that the proceedings at trial were regular and proper and 

that the judgment was supported by competent and sufficient 

evidence”).
In re J.S.

20170622-CA 3 2017 UT App 197

trial court has an opportunity to rule on that issue.” 438 Main St. 

v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶ 51, 99 P.3d 801 (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re K.C., 2015 UT 92, 

¶ 29, 362 P.2d 1248 (indicating that the juvenile court had no 

obligation to examine whether reasonable accommodations were 

made under the ADA until the parent actually “invoked” the 

Act). Mother fails to demonstrate that she ever indicated to the 

court that she believed that the services offered to her did not 

adequately take into account her alleged disability. In fact, the 

record demonstrates that the juvenile court actually did take 

Mother’s disability into account in determining the services 

Mother would be offered. Specifically, when the juvenile court

entered its disposition order in March of 2017, it found that the 

“[s]ervices are a reasonable accommodation for the parent’s 

disability.” There is no indication that Mother objected to the 

finding or otherwise requested services that were not offered. 

Accordingly, because Mother did not preserve the issue, and has 

not otherwise argued that an exception to the preservation rule 

applies in this case, we do not address the issue on appeal.

¶4 Affirmed.