Can parents challenge dependency adjudication delays they requested? In re P.M. Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether parents can challenge on appeal adjudication delays they actively requested during dependency proceedings in In re P.M.

Background and Facts

M.M. was traveling with her infant child when she was involved in an incident at a Salt Lake City hotel that resulted in her involuntary commitment. Officers observed her engaging in erratic behavior while holding her child in an unsafe manner around the neck area. The State filed a verified child welfare petition alleging dependency. However, the adjudication hearing was delayed seven months due to UCCJEA jurisdictional issues as the family moved between Idaho, South Dakota, and Utah. Throughout these proceedings, Mother’s counsel consistently requested delays to resolve jurisdictional questions.

Key Legal Issues

Mother appealed arguing that: (1) the juvenile court’s application of the UCCJEA resulted in unlawful delay violating the sixty-day statutory deadline in Utah Code section 80-3-401(2); (2) the delayed adjudication violated her due process rights; and (3) inadequate language interpretation at the hearing deprived her of due process. The court applied the invited error doctrine and analyzed whether Mother could establish plain error for unpreserved claims.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found that Mother’s counsel had consistently urged delay, telling the court “I’m hesitant to adjudicate on this case…until we figure out if this case is staying here or going somewhere else.” Under the invited error doctrine, parties cannot challenge errors they affirmatively created. The court also found no harmful error regarding language interpretation, as substantial evidence supported the dependency finding even without the challenged testimony about Mother’s Spanish statements.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the importance of strategic decision-making in dependency cases involving interstate jurisdictional issues. Practitioners must carefully weigh the benefits of requesting delays against the risk of waiving appellate challenges. The ruling also demonstrates that harmless error analysis applies rigorously in dependency proceedings—evidentiary errors will not warrant reversal where substantial evidence supports the court’s findings regardless of the challenged evidence.