Can parents seek custody restoration during an existing permanent guardianship? In re E.R. Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the intersection of permanent guardianship and custody restoration in In re E.R., clarifying important statutory limitations on parental rights.

Background and Facts

In March 2016, the juvenile court granted permanent custody and guardianship of E.R. to the child’s proctor parents pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-6-117(2)(y). The mother initially appealed but voluntarily dismissed her appeal in April 2016. In June 2016, she filed a “Motion for Custody, New Hearing, and Relief from Both 3/18/16 Orders,” seeking restoration of custody. The juvenile court dismissed this motion based on Utah Code section 78A-6-1103(3)(b).

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether a parent can file a petition for restoration of custody during the existence of a permanent guardianship established under Utah Code section 78A-6-117(2)(y). Additionally, the court considered whether the mother’s motion constituted proper grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Utah Code section 78A-6-1103(3)(b) specifically precludes parents from petitioning to restore custody “during the existence of a permanent guardianship established for the child under Subsection 78A-6-117(2)(y).” The court found the mother’s motion was “specifically precluded” by this statutory provision. Regarding the Rule 60(b) claim, the court noted this was essentially the mother’s third request for relief from the same order, and the claim of surprise could have been raised in previous motions or her direct appeal.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear statutory limitations on custody restoration efforts. Practitioners must advise clients that once a permanent guardianship is established under section 78A-6-117(2)(y), they cannot file restoration petitions until the guardianship itself is properly modified or terminated. The decision also reinforces the principle that parties should consolidate all known grounds for relief in a single Rule 60(b) motion rather than filing successive motions.