Mother challenges Idaho guardianship and alleged ICPC breach in Utah Court of Appeals argument

Alexander Marshall, attorney for the appellant mother, argued before the Utah Court of Appeals that a probate guardianship granted to Idaho relatives was legally defective and that the district court’s later reliance on bond findings created reversible error. Marshall told the court the probate code permits nonparent custody only by parental consent or a prior finding of parental unfitness, and he said the relatives obtained custody without either showing.

Marshall urged the panel to treat the probate-stage defects as structural and prejudicial: he said the probate court ignored a same-day written objection by the mother, who was incarcerated, and did not provide her a copy of the guardianship petition. "We cannot infringe on a parent's rights without due process and that just wasn't given here," Marshall argued, stressing the effect of an unlawful initial order on later bonding findings.

Opposing counsel Theodore Weckl, representing Tyler and Katie Colby, responded that Utah’s guardianship statute gives courts broad discretion to appoint a guardian when a parent is temporarily unable to exercise parental rights. Weckl disputed that the record supports reversing on a structural-error theory, saying Judge Scott conducted an evidentiary hearing, heard testimony about bonding and parental drug history, and made findings that, in his view, supported the best-interest result.

A central factual and legal dispute at argument concerned the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). Marshall argued the district court "sent" the child out of state without completing the ICPC-required review and that retroactive compliance is not always a cure because the prior, noncompliant order can create prejudice—particularly where bonding formed while the defective order stood. The court explored whether remanding to allow Idaho to complete an ICPC review (or allowing retroactive compliance) might be an adequate remedy in some circumstances.

Weckl acknowledged the ICPC text is formal and highlighted that Utah’s statute expressly references foster care and placements "preliminary to a possible adoption"; he pointed out the statutory language does not explicitly mention guardianships and suggested the question whether guardianship placements fall within ICPC Article 3 could be a close, possibly novel issue in Utah. He also noted that no national-level background checks or Idaho home studies had been performed at the time Judge Scott ruled.

The panel pressed both sides on whether the district court’s factual findings about the mother’s substance problems, the relatives’ caregiving, and the child’s changed recognition of the mother could be disentangled from bonding formed during the period the appellant contends was tainted by procedural error. Appellate counsel said the probate court’s errors were central to later findings and that the case should not have proceeded without proper probate-stage process; respondent counsel said the record contained evidence from which Judge Scott could reach the challenged conclusions.

Appellant counsel described a timeline for the panel: the relatives filed a guardianship petition in mid-June, mother executed notarized paperwork in early July (07/06 appears in the record), and the district court’s findings state the child returned on 06/17/2022; counsel said mother filed a written objection the same day the probate court entered the guardianship and that the record shows delays and procedural failures that contributed to prejudice. Counsel for the relatives emphasized that the district court later considered the matter in a separate proceeding and that Judge Scott had the chance to evaluate the child’s best interest.

The court asked whether retroactive ICPC compliance or remand would be the optimal remedy if the panel finds ICPC noncompliance; appellant warned that retroactive compliance risks condoning prejudicial interstate placements, while respondent said courts have sometimes upheld placements where the record otherwise established suitability. Both sides acknowledged the ICPC question raises statutory-text concerns and that the outcome may turn on mixed legal and factual judgments.

The panel concluded oral argument after extended questioning and took a brief recess to reconfigure the panel. The appeals court did not announce a decision at argument. The next procedural step will be the court’s internal deliberations and eventual written opinion resolving whether the probate-stage process or any ICPC violation requires vacatur, remand, or affirmation of the district court’s order.