Utah Court of Appeals

Can parents raise ADA accommodation claims for the first time on appeal in juvenile cases? In re J.S. Explained

2017 UT App 197
No. 20170622-CA
October 26, 2017
Affirmed

Summary

Mother appealed a juvenile court order granting permanent custody of her child to the father and terminating court jurisdiction. She claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Analysis

In In re J.S., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a parent can raise claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the first time on appeal in juvenile court proceedings. The court’s decision reinforces the critical importance of preservation of error in appellate practice.

Background and Facts

The juvenile court granted permanent custody of J.S. to the child’s father and terminated its jurisdiction. The mother (N.P.) was represented by three different attorneys during the proceedings—she was initially appointed counsel, then requested substitute counsel, and ultimately chose to represent herself with standby counsel assistance. On appeal, Mother argued she was denied effective assistance of counsel and reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: (1) whether Mother was denied effective assistance of counsel despite having multiple appointed attorneys, and (2) whether she could raise an ADA accommodation claim without having requested such accommodations in the trial court.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected both claims. Regarding ineffective assistance, Mother failed to identify specific deficient conduct by any of her three attorneys or demonstrate that different representation would have changed the outcome. More significantly, the court held that Mother’s ADA claim was not preserved because she never requested accommodations from the trial court. The court noted that “in order to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue must be presented to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to rule on that issue.” Remarkably, the record showed the juvenile court had actually found that services provided were “a reasonable accommodation for the parent’s disability,” and Mother never objected or requested different services.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores that preservation of error remains paramount in juvenile appeals. Practitioners representing parents with disabilities must make specific, on-the-record requests for ADA accommodations during trial court proceedings. The court will not address unpreserved claims absent exceptional circumstances, even in the sensitive context of parental rights termination.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

In re J.S.

Citation

2017 UT App 197

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20170622-CA

Date Decided

October 26, 2017

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A parent who fails to request reasonable accommodations under the ADA in juvenile court proceedings cannot raise that claim for the first time on appeal due to failure to preserve the issue.

Standard of Review

Not specified in the opinion

Practice Tip

Always make specific requests for ADA accommodations on the record in juvenile court proceedings to preserve such claims for appeal.

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

    Fadel v. Deseret First Credit Union

    August 31, 2017

    An attorney’s lien on real property cannot be enforced against a third party when the notice of lien is recorded after the third party has already recorded its deed, and the attorney cannot establish a lien on property no longer owned by the former client.
    • Attorney Fees
    • |
    • Property Rights
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Friel

    April 23, 2015

    A defendant who fails to object to the State’s characterization of a plea agreement at sentencing cannot establish plain error when the alleged breach would not have been obvious to the district court.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    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.