Opinion ID: 2626921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the permanency order awarding custody of the children to mother was final and appealable

Text: ¶16 Before certifying this case to us, the court of appeals instructed the parties to brief the issue of whether the permanency order in this case was final for purposes of appellate review. Inexplicably, Father failed to provide the requested briefingeven though Father was the party who had initially raised, in a motion for summary dismissal, the argument that the permanency order was not final. Both Mother and the GAL briefed the issue, but they agreed that the order in this case was final for purposes of appeal. Mother then reversed her position at oral argument and argued that the order was not final. ¶17 Because this issue is jurisdictional, we address it. We conclude that permanency orders such as this that terminate DCFS's custody of a minor, end reunification services, and return the minor to the custody of a parent are final for purposes of appellate review. ¶18 We have said that [t]he finality of an order in juvenile proceedings is determined the same way as the finality of an order in other courts. [6] A final order is one that ends the current juvenile proceedings, leaving no question open for further judicial action. [7] But our inquiry into whether an order leaves a question open for further judicial action is often unconcerned with the question of whether the juvenile court's jurisdiction over a minor continues beyond its entry of the order. Because considerations regarding a child's welfare are rarely, if ever, static and because the child's environment is constantly evolving, the juvenile court frequently retains jurisdiction over cases after some of the issues have been finally resolved. [8] For instance, the juvenile court retains jurisdiction over a child whose custody is awarded in a neglect proceeding, but that does not mean the neglect adjudication is not final. [9] [A]n order entered upon disposition of an adjudicated petition of abuse, neglect or dependency is a final order on the merits of the petition because it ends the current juvenile proceedings begun by the petition, and is a final factual determination of the underlying petition. [10] On the other hand, shelter orders and orders denying motions for temporary custody of children are not final because they make an interim determination pending additional proceedings. [11] ¶19 The October 27, 2005 permanency order from which the GAL appeals is final and appealable because it terminates the custody of DCFS and awards custody to Motherfinally implementing the permanency goal set for the children. In that permanency order, the court found that all of the children then in DCFS custody, except A.K. and S.K., would be safe in Mother's custody despite the prior abuse and neglect leading to their removal. ¶20 This is not an interim award of custody pending additional findings of fact. No further proceedings are contemplated with regard to the question of whether, given the record of past problems, the children should be returned to Mother. Because Father never had physical custody of the children and has not sought physical custody, outstanding issues regarding his rights to the children do not affect the finality of the order awarding custody to Mother. Neither is finality affected by the juvenile court's order that the family be involved in continuing protective services and counseling. The permanency order at issue is a final determination of Mother's custody, and the juvenile court is specifically authorized under Utah Code section 78-3a-312(4)(f) to exercise its discretion to order protective services and to make additional orders in the best interest of the minor when DCFS's custody of a minor has been terminated. [12] ¶21 Because we hold that the permanency order was final and appealable, we will now proceed to address the remaining two issues presented by the GAL's appeal.