Posted: October 10, 2024
Rules of Civil Procedure – Comment Period Closed November 24, 2024
URCP0107. Decree of adoption; Petition to open adoption records. AMEND. Proposed amendments are made to reflect the requirements found in Utah Code section 78A-6-141 and Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rule 4-202.03, as well as, to conform to the style guide for the rules.
URCP026.4. Provisions governing disclosure and discovery in contested proceedings under Title 75 of the Utah Code. AMEND. Proposed amendments are made to reflect the recodification of the probate code to reference additional Utah Code titles, as well as, to conform to the style guide for the rules.
Respectfully, limiting an adoptive parent’s ability to obtain a copy of their Decree of Adoption after the adoption is finalized by requiring them to file a Petition to Reopen, rather than simply presenting a government-issued ID, is just wrong. The explanation given is that this rule is being modified to reflect the requirements in Utah Code § 78A-6-141 and Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rule 4-202.03. However, the existing rule should remain in place, and Section 141 and the aforementioned rule should be amended, if necessary. Often, many years later, when an adoptive parent cannot locate their original or needs an extra copy, they come to the court for that copy and have historically been able to show their ID to obtain it. Now, this process will cost them hundreds of dollars and waste the judiciary’s time. Why should this be necessary just for the adoptive parent to obtain a copy? This is unreasonable, especially when a clerk can easily make that decision on the spot. An adoptive parent should always be able to obtain a copy of their Decree of Adoption by showing they were the petitioner in the case.
URCP0107 – Please do not remove the ability for Adoptive Parent or Adult Adoptee to obtain a certified copy of the Adoption Decree with proof of ID. It saves so much time as a court clerk when assisting individuals who only need that one document. The court processes are already confusing enough for pro se parties that even with the resources available on the court’s website it’s still murky enough that it creates more questions than answers. This is the webpage I’m referring to https://www.utcourts.gov/en/self-help/case-categories/family/adoption/records.html
Please keep the current paragraph (a) as is and do not remove it.
Dear Civil Procedure Advisory Committee,
This comment about the proposed amendments to Civil Rule 26.4 is submitted by the Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders (“WINGS”), a Judicial Council Committee under CJA Rule 1-205(1)(A)(xv). We recommend a modification to the language of the rule, as follows:
Amend (c)(3)(A)(ii) at Line 38 to read –
“a description of less restrictive alternatives to guardianship or conservatorship that have been explored, their applicability, and a list of ways in which a guardianship or conservatorship of the respondent may be limited.”
The proposed language above emphasizes the statutory requirement found in Utah Code 75-5-304, that a limited guardianship is preferred and only when no other alternative exists for the care and supervision of a incapacitated person is a full guardianship granted. It serves as a reminder to counsel that gathering and sharing this information is an important step in discovery. Additionally, it better positions the court to prompt discussion or request information needed to make the best decision possible about the necessity for or scope of a guardianship or conservatorship.
If your committee would like further input, we would be happy to appear at a committee meeting to discuss the importance of these suggested changes.
Thank you for your consideration.
WINGS Executive Committee – Judge Keith Kelly, Brant Christiansen, Nels Holmgren, Nan Mendenhall, Andrew Riggle, Keri Sargent, Shonna Thomas, and Michelle Wilkes