Can appointed counsel withdraw from a juvenile case when the client fails to appear? In re R.G. Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed the intersection of counsel withdrawal motions and ineffective assistance claims in termination proceedings in In re R.G. This case provides important guidance for practitioners handling juvenile cases where clients fail to appear for critical hearings.

Background and Facts
After Child was born testing positive for illegal substances, DCFS placed the child in state custody. Following failed reunification efforts, the case proceeded to a termination trial. Despite having proper notice and being granted permission to appear virtually, Mother failed to appear for any part of the three-day trial. When counsel moved to withdraw mid-trial, arguing she was in a “tricky situation” defending without a client, both the State and guardian ad litem objected, noting that counsel withdrawal in the previous terminated trial had been problematic.

Key Legal Issues
The case presented two primary questions: whether the juvenile court erred in denying counsel’s motion to withdraw, and whether Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel as a result. Mother argued that the court’s denial created a conflict of interest by forcing counsel to present damaging evidence to demonstrate compliance with the court’s directive to “do the best you can.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied an abuse of discretion standard to the withdrawal motion and found no error. Critically, counsel had failed to comply with Utah Rule of Juvenile Procedure 53(c) certification requirements, specifically failing to inform Mother that she would be seeking withdrawal. The court emphasized that strict compliance with rule requirements is mandatory, not discretionary. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court found counsel’s performance objectively reasonable given that Mother’s own absence created the representation challenges.

Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Rule 53(c) compliance is non-negotiable for withdrawal motions in juvenile proceedings. Practitioners should ensure clients are properly notified of withdrawal motions and their rights before seeking court approval. The ruling also confirms that clients cannot manufacture ineffective assistance claims through their own failure to participate in proceedings, providing important protection for appointed counsel facing difficult representation circumstances.