Utah Court of Appeals

Does Utah law give relatives preference in adoption proceedings? State v. G.H.M. Explained

2003 UT App 262
No. 20020454-CA
July 25, 2003
Affirmed

Summary

G.H.M., the maternal grandmother of two children in DCFS custody, appealed the juvenile court’s denial of her adoption petition. The grandmother had briefly cared for the children but returned them to DCFS due to financial and familial problems. She argued she was entitled to preferential consideration as a relative under Utah Code § 78-3a-307 during adoption proceedings.

Analysis

In State v. G.H.M., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether relatives receive preferential consideration in adoption proceedings under the same statutory framework that governs dependency cases. The case provides important guidance for practitioners representing family members in adoption matters.

Background and Facts

Two children were placed in DCFS custody after being removed from their mother’s care. The maternal grandmother initially received custody through a kinship placement but returned the children to DCFS less than a month later due to financial and familial problems. After the parents’ rights were terminated, the grandmother petitioned for adoption, arguing she was entitled to preferential consideration as a relative under Utah Code § 78-3a-307.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code § 78-3a-307, which provides preferential consideration for relatives in abuse, neglect, and dependency proceedings, applies to adoption proceedings. The grandmother contended that her initial acceptance of custody demonstrated sufficient “interest” to maintain her preferential status.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s ruling, applying a correctness standard to the statutory interpretation question. The court emphasized that § 78-3a-307 applies only to initial placement decisions after shelter hearings, with any preference expiring after 120 days. Moreover, the Utah Adoption Code (§§ 78-30-1 to -19) governs adoption proceedings and contains no preferential consideration for relatives based solely on familial relationships. Instead, adoption decisions must focus on the best interests of the child, with special consideration given only to foster parents who have cared for the child for six months or longer.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that relatives cannot rely on dependency-case preferences when pursuing adoption. Practitioners representing family members must focus their arguments on demonstrating that adoption by their client serves the child’s best interests rather than asserting statutory preferences. The ruling reinforces the legislature’s policy priority of achieving permanency and stability for children in state custody.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. G.H.M.

Citation

2003 UT App 262

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20020454-CA

Date Decided

July 25, 2003

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

Preferential consideration for relatives in abuse, neglect, and dependency proceedings under Utah Code § 78-3a-307 does not apply in adoption proceedings.

Standard of Review

Correctness for statutory interpretation

Practice Tip

When representing relatives in adoption cases, focus on establishing the best interests of the child rather than arguing for statutory preferences that apply only in dependency proceedings.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Winters v. Schulman

    April 15, 1999

    A lis pendens may be filed in Utah for out-of-state actions, but the lis pendens in this case was invalid because no action was pending when filed and the action did not affect title to or possession of Utah property.
    • Attorney Fees
    • |
    • Property Rights
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Barner

    April 23, 2020

    A district court properly excludes lay witness opinion testimony under Rule 701 when the witness’s conclusion is based solely on surveillance video that will be shown to the jury and offers no unique insight beyond what the jury can observe themselves.
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Sufficiency of Evidence
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.