Are permanency orders that return children to parental custody final and appealable? State ex rel. S.M. Explained

In State ex rel. S.M., the Utah Supreme Court clarified when permanency orders become final and appealable, while also addressing crucial standards that govern the return of children to parental custody in juvenile proceedings.

Background and facts

This case involved eleven children who were removed from their parents’ custody due to abuse and neglect. After initial adjudication, the juvenile court set reunification with mother as the permanency goal and ordered reunification services. Following two permanency hearings, the court ultimately returned custody of nine children to mother while maintaining protective supervision. The Guardian ad Litem appealed, challenging both the finality of the order and the legal standards applied.

Key legal issues

The appeal presented three main issues: (1) whether the permanency order was final for appellate review purposes; (2) whether the juvenile court applied the correct legal standard under Utah Code section 78-3a-312(2)(a); and (3) whether the court properly excluded expert testimony under Rule 20A(h)(1) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure.

Court’s analysis and holding

The court held that permanency orders terminating DCFS custody and returning children to parental custody are final and appealable. Such orders end the current juvenile proceedings regarding custody determination, even though the juvenile court retains jurisdiction for ongoing protective services. The court distinguished these final custody determinations from interim orders pending additional proceedings.

Regarding the legal standard, the court confirmed that juvenile courts must apply the safety standard under section 78-3a-312(2)(a), determining whether children “may safely be returned” to parental custody. While the GAL argued the court improperly applied a “substantial compliance” standard, the Supreme Court found the juvenile court had properly focused on child safety, using compliance findings only as they related to safety considerations.

Practice implications

This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling juvenile appeals. Permanency orders returning custody to parents are immediately appealable, eliminating uncertainty about appellate timing. However, practitioners must carefully distinguish between safety determinations and compliance findings in permanency proceedings. The court’s analysis of expert witness disclosure rules also clarifies that Rule 46 governs disposition hearings like permanency proceedings, not the stricter disclosure requirements of Rule 20A(h)(1) applicable to adjudication trials.