Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rule34e Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court of Appeals hears dispute over withdrawing Rule 34(e) admissions in child-welfare case
Summary
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument on whether parents who entered Rule 34(e) admissions to secure reunification services may later seek to withdraw those admissions and whether ineffective-assistance claims related to that decision can be raised in a later termination appeal. The panel took the matter under advisement.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument this morning over whether parents who entered Rule 34(e) admissions in a child-welfare case may later withdraw those admissions and whether a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel tied to that decision may be considered in an appeal from a later termination order.
Appellant's counsel Jason Richards told the panel that the parents entered Rule 34(e) answers primarily to obtain reunification services, but that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) "did an about face and recommended no reunification and a goal of adoption." Richards said the juvenile court's response to the parents' motion to withdraw was procedurally incorrect and argued the proper relief would be to set aside the underlying adjudication order or, if necessary, to address the matter under Rule 60(b) of the civil rules.
Why it matters: The panel's outcome could change when and how parents and counsel must seek relief after admissions in child-welfare cases. Judges focused on whether a denial of a motion to withdraw a Rule 34(e) answer should be treated as an immediately appealable final order, which would trigger the 15-day appeal timeline for adjudication orders. That timing question affects whether an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim can be pursued later in a termination appeal or must be raised earlier.
The guardian ad litem, Martha Pierce, told the court the appeal is from a termination order and not from the earlier adjudication or a separate Rule 60(b) determination. "They did not appeal either one," Pierce said, arguing the court lacks jurisdiction to reach claims arising from an earlier final order when parties did not timely appeal.
The Assistant Attorney General, John Peterson, described the prevailing practice in some juvenile courts as "using 34(e) effectively as a plea," but urged the panel to require relief through Rule 60(b) or a timely appeal of the adjudication order rather than permitting later collateral challenges. Peterson warned that allowing untimely collateral review could undermine finality and delay permanency for children.
The panel spent significant time exploring how the Strickland ineffective-assistance standard applies where practice is unsettled, the functional differences between Rule 15 and Rule 60(b), and what remedy the Court of Appeals might order (remand for a hearing, setting aside an adjudication, or other relief). The court took the matter under advisement and said it will issue a written opinion as soon as practicable.
