Utah Supreme Court

Can parents appeal termination orders during pending adoption proceedings? In re Adoption of B.C. Explained

2025 UT 23
No. 20230726
July 25, 2025
Remanded

Summary

A father appealed the termination of his parental rights in connection with his ex-wife’s new husband’s adoption petition. The court of appeals had previously held that such termination orders are not immediately appealable when the adoption petition remains unresolved. The Utah Supreme Court retained jurisdiction to address the father’s challenges on the merits.

Analysis

Background and Facts

A.K. (Mother) had four minor children with C.C. (Father). In 2013, Father was charged with sexual abuse of a minor while the family lived in Alaska. Mother and the children moved to Utah, and Father was later convicted and incarcerated. Mother divorced Father in 2016 and married L.K. (Stepfather), who began raising the children. In 2020, Mother and Stepfather petitioned for stepparent adoption and moved to terminate Father’s parental rights. The district court granted the termination after an evidentiary hearing.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Father could immediately appeal the termination of parental rights order while the underlying adoption petition remained pending. The Utah Court of Appeals had previously ruled in In re Adoption of K.R.S. that such orders are not immediately appealable because they do not dispose of all parties and claims in the adoption proceeding, making them non-final orders.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court referenced its decision in Ross v. Kracht, 2025 UT 22, and retained jurisdiction over the case to hear Father’s challenges to the termination order. The Court issued a separate order requiring the parties to brief the merits of Father’s challenges, effectively allowing review despite the court of appeals’ finding that the order was non-final.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance on appellate jurisdiction in adoption cases. While termination orders may not be immediately appealable under traditional finality rules, the Utah Supreme Court demonstrated its willingness to exercise jurisdiction when fundamental parental rights are at stake. Practitioners should consider seeking extraordinary review through writs of certiorari or mandamus when faced with adverse termination orders in ongoing adoption proceedings, particularly when time-sensitive parental rights issues are involved.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

In re Adoption of B.C.

Citation

2025 UT 23

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20230726

Date Decided

July 25, 2025

Outcome

Remanded

Holding

The Utah Supreme Court retained jurisdiction to hear a father’s challenges to a termination of parental rights order while the underlying adoption petition remains pending.

Standard of Review

Not specified in this procedural order

Practice Tip

When appealing termination orders in adoption cases, consider seeking immediate review through extraordinary writs if the court of appeals finds the order non-final.

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 Supreme Court

    State v. Mateos-Martinez

    May 3, 2013

    The Eighth Amendment’s absolute ban on certain victim impact testimony applies only to capital sentencing proceedings and does not extend to noncapital adult sentencing proceedings before a judge where life without parole is the maximum penalty.
    • Constitutional Rights
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    State v. Alinas

    October 26, 2007

    Utah’s Sexual Exploitation of a Minor statute does not violate the First Amendment because it requires proof that images depict actual minors, not virtual children, and the jury may determine whether images show real children and whether those children are minors without expert testimony.
    • Constitutional Rights
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    • |
    • Sufficiency of Evidence
    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.