In re K.K. and K.K. (R.W.K. v. State) , 2013 UT App 44 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                         
    2013 UT App 44
    _________________________________________________________
    THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF K.K. AND K.K.,
    PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
    R.W.K.,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF UTAH,
    Appellee.
    Per Curiam Decision
    No. 20120868‐CA
    Filed February 22, 2013
    Fourth District Juvenile, American Fork Department
    The Honorable Scott N. Johansen
    No. 142957
    Scott E. Williams, Attorney for Appellant
    John E. Swallow and John M. Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
    Martha Pierce, Guardian Ad Litem
    Before JUDGES DAVIS, MCHUGH, AND VOROS.
    PER CURIAM:
    ¶1     R.W.K. (Father) appeals the September 27, 2012 order
    terminating his parental rights and the October 30, 2012 order
    denying his post‐judgment motion to require the State to pay for
    his transcripts.
    In re K.K. and K.K.
    ¶2      Rule 55(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure
    provides, in relevant part “[t]he petition on appeal must be field
    with the appellate clerk within 15 days from the filing of the notice
    of appeal or the amended notice of appeal. If the petition on appeal
    is not timely filed, the appeal shall be dismissed.” Utah R. App. P.
    55(a).
    ¶3      On October 12, 2012, Father filed a timely notice of appeal
    from the order terminating his parental rights. Subsequently,
    Father filed a motion for an extension of time to file his petition on
    appeal. On October 31, 2012, this court granted his motion for an
    extension of time and ordered Father to file his petition on appeal
    on or before November 13, 2012. Father did not file his petition on
    appeal until November 19, 2012. Thus, the petition on appeal was
    not filed timely and we are required to dismiss the appeal from the
    order terminating his parental rights. See 
    id. ¶4
           On November 14, 2012, the day after Father was required to
    file his petition on appeal, Father filed an amended notice of appeal
    challenging the juvenile court’s October 30, 2012 order denying his
    post‐judgment motion for the State to pay for his transcripts.
    Generally, in child welfare appeals, an amended notice of appeal
    is utilized to add an appellant’s signature to the notice of appeal
    and the amended notice of appeal must be filed within fifteen days
    of the filing of the notice of appeal. See Utah R. App. P. 53(b). Here,
    Father’s amended notice of appeal was not filed within fifteen days
    of his notice of appeal. See 
    id.
     Furthermore, the amended notice of
    appeal pertained to the October 30, 2012 order denying his motion
    for the State to pay for his transcripts, which constituted a separate,
    appealable order. Thus, the filing of the amended notice of appeal
    did not toll the time for filing his petition on appeal relating to the
    termination of his parental rights, which was required to be filed
    on or before November 13, 2012 per this court’s October 31, 2012
    order. See Utah R. App. P. 55(a).
    ¶5    Because the amended notice of appeal was filed timely from
    the October 30, 2012 order, this court has jurisdiction to consider
    20120868‐CA                       2                  
    2013 UT App 44
    In re K.K. and K.K.
    whether the juvenile court erred by denying Father’s motion for the
    State to pay for his transcripts. However, review of the October 30,
    2012 order has been rendered moot by Father’s failure to file a
    timely petition on appeal in his appeal from the order terminating
    his parental rights. A matter is moot when the requested judicial
    relief cannot affect the rights of the litigants. See Towner v. Ridgway,
    
    2012 UT App 35
    , ¶ 6, 
    272 P.3d 765
    . Even assuming that we were to
    conclude that the juvenile court erred by denying Father’s motion,
    it could not affect the termination of his parental rights.
    ¶6    Accordingly, the appeal from the juvenile court’s
    September27, 2012 order terminating Father’s parental rights is
    dismissed and we decline to review the order denying his post‐
    judgment motion as it is moot.
    20120868‐CA                        3                  
    2013 UT App 44
                                

Document Info

Docket Number: 20120868-CA

Citation Numbers: 2013 UT App 44

Filed Date: 2/22/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2021