In re: A. F.

2007 UT 69
This opinion is subject to revision before final
publication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
----oo0oo----
State of Utah, in the interest No. 20060648
of A.F., a person under eighteen
years of age.
________________________________
C.M.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
F I L E D
State of Utah,
Respondent. August 24, 2007
---
Second District Juvenile, Farmington Dep’t
The Honorable Stephen A. Van Dyke
No. 450283
Attorneys: Scott L. Wiggins, Salt Lake City, Daniel G. Shumway,
Layton, for petitioner
Mark L. Shurtleff, Att’y Gen., Carol L. C. Verdoia,
John M. Peterson, Asst. Att’ys Gen., for respondent
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Katharina Christensen,
Layton, for real party in interest
---
On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals
DURHAM, Chief Justice:
BACKGROUND
¶1 When A.F. (the Child) was born on August 23, 2004,
urine tests showed that he had methamphetamine in his system, and
C.M.F. (the Mother) admitted that she had used the drug the day
before. The Division of Child and Family Services (the Division)
removed the Child from the Mother’s custody four days later. The
juvenile court subsequently established the Child’s primary
permanency goal as reunification and ordered reunification
services and compliance with the service plan. At the permanency
hearing held eight months after the Child’s removal from the
Mother’s custody, the juvenile court found that the Mother had
failed to substantially comply with the service plan and had
failed to demonstrate that the Child could be safely returned to
her care. The juvenile court ordered termination of
reunification services and changed the Child’s permanency goal to

No. 20060648 2
adoption. The Mother appealed this order. The court of appeals
determined that because the order was not final and appealable,
it lacked jurisdiction. We granted certiorari to determine
whether the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification
services and setting a permanency goal of adoption was a final,
appealable order. We agree with the court of appeals and hold
that it was not.
ANALYSIS
¶2 The Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure allow a party to
appeal from “all final orders and judgments.” Utah R. App. P
3(a). In this case, the court of appeals determined that it
lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a final, appealable
order. C.M.F. v. State (State ex rel. A.F.), 2006 UT App 200,
¶ 17, 138 P.3d 65. We review the court of appeals’ conclusions
of law for correctness. Hardinger v. Scott (State ex. rel.
B.B.), 2004 UT 39, ¶ 5, 94 P.3d 252.
¶3 This court has explained that “‘[t]he finality of an
order in juvenile proceedings is determined the same way as the
finality of an order in other courts.’” Office of the Guardian
ad Litem v. H.M. (State ex rel. S.M.), 2007 UT 21, ¶ 18, 154 P.3d
835 (quoting State ex rel. M.W., 2000 UT 79, ¶ 25, 12 P.3d 80).
“A final order is one that ends the current juvenile proceedings,
leaving no question open for further judicial action.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). The question of whether an
order is final and appealable is determined by the “substance and
effect” of the order. See Cahoon v. Cahoon, 641 P.2d 140, 142
(Utah 1982). In the child welfare arena, the determining factor
in deciding if an order is final and appealable is whether it
effects a change in the permanent status of the child. For
example, termination of parental rights is final and appealable
because it constitutes a change in the child’s status in that it
changes the child’s legal relationship with his or her parents.
Cf. D.A. v. State (In the Interest of W.A.), 2002 UT 127, ¶ 22,
63 P.3d 607 (explaining that “parental termination proceedings
clearly involve the determination of a child’s status vis-a-vis
its parents”).
¶4 Thus, an order resulting from a permanency hearing is
final and appealable only if it effects a change in the status of
the child. In this case, the permanency hearing resulted in the
juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and
changing the Child’s permanency goal to adoption. It did not
constitute a final, appealable order because it did not affect
the status of the Child and served only as an interim
determination made in anticipation of additional proceedings.
The Child remained in the State’s custody and continued to have
legal ties to the Mother. Further judicial action was required
to effect a change in the Child’s permanent status.

1 The court may extend reunification services for up to
ninety days if the parent has substantially complied with the
service plan, reunification is probable within the extension
period, and the extension is in the best interest of the child.
Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-312(4)(d)(Supp. 2006).
3 No. 20060648
¶5 The purpose of the permanency hearing is “to compel the
end of the period during which a child is in legal limbo” and
“mov[e] the case toward the ultimate goal of providing permanency
for abused, neglected, and dependent children.” State v. J.N.
(State ex rel. J.N.), 960 P.2d 403, 407-08 (Utah Ct. App. 1998).
At the permanency hearing, the court must first determine whether
the child may be safely returned to the parent’s custody. Utah
Code Ann. § 78-3a-312(2)(a) (Supp. 2006). If the court
determines that the child cannot be safely returned to the parent
or guardian, it must generally terminate reunification services1
and make a determination regarding the final plan for the child.
Id. § 78-3a-312(4)(a). If reunification is not appropriate, the
court’s final plan for the child may be adoption, guardianship,
kinship placement, or another permanent living arrangement. Id.
§ 78-3a-312(4)(a), (b).
¶6 Despite its name, a permanency hearing does not always
result in an order that affects the permanent status of the
child. Some permanency hearings, as in the instant case, result
in orders that merely set a direction for the remainder of the
proceedings and clearly anticipate further judicial action. On
the other hand, some will result in orders that do affect the
permanent status of the child. For example, in S.M. the Guardian
ad Litem appealed an order that ended reunification services,
terminated the Division’s custody, and returned the children to
the custody of the mother. State ex rel. S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶¶ 1,
17. We concluded that this decision was final and appealable
because “it terminate[d] the custody of [the Division] and
award[ed] custody to [the] Mother--finally implementing the
permanency goal set for the children.” Id. ¶ 19. The effect of
the juvenile court’s decision in S.M. was to immediately
implement a change in the permanent status of the children, and
thus the decision required no further judicial action to be
final. Similarly, an order that implements a final custody
arrangement, such as guardianship or kinship placement, changes
the child’s status and may be appealed.
¶7 In contrast, the effect of the permanency hearing
decision in this case was only to reorient the focus of the
remaining proceedings toward adoption as a final permanency goal.
The order terminating reunification services and changing the
permanency goal left the Child’s status unchanged and unresolved
and therefore was not a final determination of the Mother’s
rights or the Child’s status.

No. 20060648 4
¶8 After reunification services were terminated, the
Mother could still have regained custody of the Child by taking
steps to show fitness and petitioning the court for custody at
any time prior to termination of her parental rights. “Although
it may be a difficult feat to accomplish, the [Mother] may still
[have been] able to change circumstances such that” the court may
have returned the Child to her custody. State ex rel. J.N., 960
P.2d at 408 n.8. “Although the State no longer provide[d]
reunification services to the family, the family [could] still be
reunified.” Id. Further judicial action was required to effect
a change in the Child’s permanent status.
¶9 Likewise, setting the Child’s permanency goal as
adoption did not constitute an actual change in his status
because adoption could not be accomplished without further
judicial action to terminate the Mother’s parental rights. The
court’s decision establishing a new permanency goal was “not
final because [it made] an interim determination pending
additional proceedings.” State ex rel. S.M., 2007 UT 21, ¶ 18.
A mere change in a permanency goal or the creation of a “final
plan” did not affect the Child’s status in the absence of further
action taken to realize the goal or implement the plan.
¶10 Interim orders such as this are not appealable, but
they may still be reviewable as a part of subsequent proceedings.
For instance, findings from a permanency hearing may be reviewed
on appeal from a termination decision if the trial court relied
on those findings at the termination trial using the proper
standard of proof. While orders that do not affect the status of
the child are not immediately appealable as a matter of right,
they are not rendered completely unreviewable. Discretionary
review may be sought through a petition for interlocutory appeal.
See Utah R. App. P. 5.
CONCLUSION
¶11 We hold that the juvenile court’s order terminating
reunification services and setting a final permanency plan of
adoption was not a final, appealable order. Therefore, we affirm
the decision of the court of appeals dismissing the Mother’s
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
---
¶12 Associate Chief Justice Wilkins, Justice Durrant,
Justice Parrish, and Justice Nehring concur in Chief Justice
Durham’s opinion.