Opinion ID: 2636685
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the order terminating mr. nuosci's parental rights is final and appealable

Text: ¶ 10 The guardian ad litem's office argues that Mr. Nuosci cannot appeal the district court order terminating his parental rights because the order is not final. We disagree. The order terminating Mr. Nuosci's parental rights permanently affects A.C.M.'s rights vis-a-vis his father and is therefore final and appealable. [A]n appeal may be taken from the juvenile court ... from a final judgment, order, or decree. Utah R. Juv. P. 52(a). However, absent certification by the adjudicating court, any order ... that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties cannot be appealed. Utah R. Civ. P. 54(b). Various procedural rules allow appeals only from final judgments, and Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure P. 3(a) specifies that this court's jurisdiction extends only over final judgments. However, `[i]n child welfare proceedings, unlike traditional civil cases, appeals may be heard from more than one final judgment.' State ex rel. A.F. v. State, 2006 UT App 200, ¶ 8, 138 P.3d 65 (quoting State ex rel. S.A.K. v. State, 2003 UT App 87, ¶ 13, 67 P.3d 1037). This difference does not stem from a different application of or exception to the final judgment rule, but rather from the unique nature of juvenile court jurisdiction, which often continues after a final judgment is rendered. [1] See In re Doe, 77 Hawai`i 109, 883 P.2d 30, 35 (1994) ([A] final judgment or decree is not necessarily the last decision of a case. (internal quotation marks omitted)); N.D. v. B.J.D., 857 S.W.2d 835, 842-43 (Mo.Ct.App. 1993) (holding that the court's denial of custody to the mother and the later termination of parental rights constituted separate final orders of the juvenile court). ¶ 11 In child welfare cases, we draw the definition of an action narrowly because the best interests of the child outweigh the interests of judicial economy. State ex rel. S.A.K., 2003 UT App 87, ¶ 13, 67 P.3d 1037. 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. C.M.F. v. State, 2007 UT 69, ¶ 6, 167 P.3d 1070. ¶ 12 The guardian ad litem's office argues that termination of Mr. Nuosci's parental rights is not a final appealable order because Ms. Sullivan's parental rights have not yet been adjudicated and A.C.M. has not been permanently placed. We have previously stated 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. We therefore treat the termination of each parent's rights separately for purposes of finality and appealability. [2] ¶ 13 The petition to terminate Mr. Nuosci's rights was a separate and discrete action brought and resolved prior to any dispute between Ms. Sullivan and the Worthingtons concerning Ms. Sullivan's parental rights. The substance and effect of the juvenile court's order terminating Mr. Nuosci's rights left no further question for the court to resolve vis-a-vis Mr. Nuosci. The court's continuing jurisdiction over A.C.M.'s permanent placement does not affect the finality of the court's order terminating Mr. Nuosci's rights, nor does the fact that the petition to terminate his rights shares a case number with the currently pending petition to terminate Ms. Sullivan's rights. We therefore conclude that we have jurisdiction to review the termination order.