Can a parent challenge denial of testimony without requesting to testify? In re D.D. Explained

In In re D.D., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a parent could challenge a juvenile court’s failure to allow testimony when no request was made for such an opportunity.

Background and Facts

The juvenile court conducted an adjudication hearing to determine whether D.D. was an abused and neglected child. Father had notice of the hearing and was represented by counsel, who cross-examined the State’s witness. However, Father arrived 41 minutes late, just as the court was announcing its decision finding the child abused and neglected. Although the court had earlier stated that Father could participate if he arrived, neither Father nor his counsel requested an opportunity for Father to testify after his belated arrival.

Key Legal Issue

The central question was whether the juvenile court erred by not allowing Father to testify after his late arrival, despite no explicit request being made for such an opportunity.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found Father’s argument lacked merit. The court emphasized that while Father’s counsel noted his client’s arrival on the record, counsel explicitly stated he would “make a closing based on the evidence that was presented today” rather than requesting an opportunity for Father to testify. The court held that under these circumstances, Father failed to demonstrate he was denied an opportunity to participate or that he made any timely request to testify necessary to preserve the issue for appeal.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the importance of making explicit requests on the record when seeking procedural accommodations. Even when a court has previously indicated flexibility, practitioners must still formally request specific relief to preserve appellate issues. The case also highlights that preservation of error requires more than simply noting a client’s presence—it requires an actual request for the relief later sought on appeal.