Court Opinion

ID: 9606845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:53:12.941585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:35.529592
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring separately) .
In view of the fact that the majority of the court are of the opinion that the order should be set aside, I voice no objection thereto. This, because I assume that opens the way for proceedings on the merits as to what should be done about these children. I realize that the requirement of diligent search for a parent in such situations is not without difficulties. Nevertheless there are circumstances where the duly authorized publication “in a newspaper having general circulation in the county in which the action is pending” serves a necessary and useful purpose. It is authorized by our Rule 4(f)(1), U.R.C.P., and had since time immemorial been recognized as valid by our statutory, (see former Section 104 — S—12, U.C.A.1943), and by our de-cisional law, see Ricks v. Wade, 97 Utah 402, 93 P.2d 479; and 126 A.L.R. 664.
It is worthy of comment here that Rule 4(f)(1), just referred to, was amended on June 26, 1972, to provide that if “ . . . the court determines that service by mail is just as likely to give actual notice as service by publication, the court may order that service . . . ” .may be made by mail.