In the Interests of A.J.B. (C.C. v State)

C.C. appealed the termination of her parental rights arguing the Ute tribal court had jurisdiction over the case. The panel affirmed. It held that read with all reasonable inferences, the petition here established that A.J.B. had lived off of any reservation for at least the six months preceding the filing of the petition, as a result the juvenile court had jurisdiction under Utah Code 78B-13-101 et seq., it never relinquished jurisdiction and the fact A.J.B. was moved onto the Uintah and Ouray Reservation while the case was pending did not change the outcome as the necessary findings to end jurisdiction were never made by any court, moves after a petition is filed do not end jurisdiction and no cogent argument in favor of tribal court jurisdiction was offered by C.C. on appeal. It held there was no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s decision not to communicate with the tribal court about this case as Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 100 only applies to communication between Utah courts and Utah Code 78B-13-110(1) allows communication but does not require it and here C.C. conceded jurisdiction and none of the grounds she argued by C.C. provided even an arguable basis for tribal court jurisdiction.

State v Jamieson

Jamieson appealed the restitution order in his computer hacking case. The panel vacated and remanded. It held there was plain error in including time spent by the victim company’s employees dealing with eh criminal case as such restitution was barred as of the date of the crime by Utah Supreme Court precedent, the precedent had come down more than one year before the restitution hearing in this case dn was even cited by the district court and inclusion of the prohibited amounts wrongly increased the award. It also held that Jamieson’s attorney was ineffective when he failed to cross examine victim’s vice president about the time claimed as spent on the hack and criminal process as there was no risk the restitution could go up, no possibility the cross examination could be perceived a lack of contrition as jail time had already been imposed and the district court expressed surprise at the high number of hours claimed and asked for help understanding how the number was calculated indicating a lower award was likely if the hours total was successfully attacked.

Hofheins v Baijo Mountain West, LLC e al.

Baijo appealed the indemnity judgment in favor of Hofheins. The panel affirmed. It held any error in striking Baijo’s summary judgment motions did not result in prejudice as Baijo was able to litigate its bad faith claims in another case and the issues Baijo wanted to litigate were repacked first breach arguments already rejected by the district court. It held there was no error in denying Baijo’s rule of civil procedure 41(b) motion as failure to tender a claim for defense only shifts the burden of persuasion in indemnity cases like this and does not free the indemnifying party from its duty to pay.

In the Interests of A.J. and A.J. (B.J. v State)

B.J. appealed termination of his parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held that any error in admitting or relying on a medical evaluation of B.J. performed during a workers compensation case in finding B.J. had a drug problem was harmless as B.J. admitted he had a drug problem, the children’s mother testified B.J. had a drug problem, B.J. failed several drug tests and there was evidence that B.J. was taking his prescribe opioids outside the prescribed limits. It finally held reasonable efforts to reunite were provided as B.J. failed to substantially comply with his service plan as he failed to make progress on the domestic violence requirements, missed several drug tests and failed others, failed to maintain stable housing and the state offered him services before the petition here was field but B.J. refused as he was upset and failed to perform ordered tasks in a timely manner despite repeated reminders by his caseworker.