In re Adoption of B.C., 2025 UT 23

Podcast Interviews and Other Sources

Podcast Interviews

Oral Argument

Briefing Documents

Plura pertinentia mox sequentur. Quaeso, redi mox.

Coverage

Facts

Family Background and Criminal Proceedings

• Mother and Father are the parents of four minor children, identified in the opinion as B.C., K.J.C., D.W.C., and B.C. 2025 UT 23, ¶ 1.
• In 2013, while the family was living in Alaska, Father was charged with two counts of sexual abuse of a minor and was incarcerated. Id.
• That same year, Mother and Children moved to Utah, and Father was convicted in 2015. Id.

Divorce and Remarriage

• In 2016, Mother divorced Father and married Stepfather, who began living with Mother and Children and raising them with her. Id.

Adoption Petition and Termination Proceedings

• In 2020, Mother and Stepfather filed a petition in district court for Stepfather to adopt Children, and as part of that action moved the district court to terminate Father’s parental rights. Id. ¶ 2.
• Father intervened and opposed both the termination and the adoption. Id.
• After an evidentiary hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights. Id.

Appellate Proceedings

• Father immediately appealed the termination order. Id. ¶ 3.
• While Father’s appeal was pending, the court of appeals decided In re Adoption of K.R.S., 2024 UT App 165, holding that a district court termination order is not immediately appealable when an underlying adoption petition remains unresolved because such an order does not “dispose of all parties and claims in the adoption proceeding.” Id. (cleaned up).
• The case reached the Utah Supreme Court on certification from the court of appeals. The court retained jurisdiction and, in an order issued alongside the opinion, directed the parties to brief the merits of Father’s challenges to the termination order. Id. ¶ 4.

Issues of the Case

• Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction

  1. Appellate Jurisdiction / Finality of the Termination Order

  Claim on Appeal: Father appealed the district court’s termination order immediately after its entry, while Mother and Stepfather’s adoption petition remained pending. The intervening decision in In re Adoption of K.R.S. called into question whether such an order is a final, appealable judgment. The opinion does not describe the specific merits arguments Father raises against the termination order.

  Holding: — Jurisdiction Retained; Merits Briefing Ordered. For the reasons articulated in the companion decision Ross v. Kracht, 2025 UT 22, the court retained jurisdiction to hear Father’s challenges to the termination order and directed the parties to brief the merits.

  Statutory Authority: None cited in the opinion.

  Standard of Review:

  Category: Correctness

  Specific Standard: No standard of review is stated in the opinion. The court resolved the jurisdictional question by reference to its companion decision: “For the reasons articulated in our decision Ross v. Kracht, 2025 UT 22, we retain jurisdiction over this case to hear further arguments on Father’s challenges to the termination order.” In re Adoption of B.C., 2025 UT 23, ¶ 4. (Classified as Correctness because appellate jurisdiction is a question of law.)

  Applies To: Whether the Utah Supreme Court has jurisdiction over Father’s appeal from a district court order terminating his parental rights entered while the underlying stepparent adoption petition remained unresolved.

  Controlling Cases:

  • Ross v. Kracht, 2025 UT 22 (companion decision supplying the reasons for which the court retained jurisdiction over this appeal)
  • In re Adoption of K.R.S., 2024 UT App 165, ¶¶ 1, 16, 561 P.3d 229 (court of appeals holding that a termination order is not immediately appealable while the adoption petition remains unresolved because it does not dispose of all parties and claims)

  Why It Matters: The decision preserves appellate review for a parent who appealed a termination order before the adoption was finalized and whose appeal was already pending when K.R.S. was decided. It signals that the Utah Supreme Court will address finality in this setting through Ross v. Kracht rather than by summarily dismissing appeals under K.R.S. Practitioners handling termination orders entered within adoption proceedings must read this opinion together with Ross v. Kracht and K.R.S. to determine when and how to appeal.

Rules of Evidence

Utah Codes

Rules of Civil Procedure

Utah Code of Judicial Administration

Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure

Utah Rules of Professional Conduct

Case Cited

Litigation and Appellate Strategy

Reversal Predictor

• This opinion does not reach the merits, so it supplies no framework for predicting reversal of a termination order.
• On the jurisdictional question, the characteristics present here that supported retaining jurisdiction were: a termination order entered within an adoption proceeding, an immediate appeal by the parent, an adoption petition still unresolved, and an appeal already pending when K.R.S. was decided. In re Adoption of B.C., 2025 UT 23, ¶¶ 2–3.

Mandatory Factor Checklist

• The opinion does not identify any statutory factors that courts must address. Practitioners should consult Ross v. Kracht and K.R.S. for the considerations governing finality of termination orders entered in adoption proceedings.

Signal Cluster (High-Risk Appeal Profile)

• A termination order entered as part of a stepparent adoption petition.
• A parent who intervened and opposed both the termination and the adoption.
• An appeal filed immediately after termination, while the adoption petition remained pending.
• An intervening change in appellate case law on finality after the notice of appeal was filed.

Strategy Insight

• Where finality is in doubt, frame the threshold argument around the jurisdictional rule articulated by the Utah Supreme Court (here, Ross v. Kracht) rather than relying on the procedural posture alone. Preserving the merits for review depends first on securing a forum willing to hear them.

Procedural Posture and Companion Decision

• The case came to the Utah Supreme Court on certification from the court of appeals and was decided the same day as Ross v. Kracht, 2025 UT 22. The court disposed of jurisdiction in a brief opinion and issued a separate order calling for merits briefing. In re Adoption of B.C., 2025 UT 23, ¶ 4.

Teaching Value

• The opinion illustrates how an intervening appellate decision on finality can affect an appeal already in progress, and how the Utah Supreme Court may resolve a recurring jurisdictional question once, in a lead case, and apply it to companion cases by reference.

Insights

Utah-Only Jurisprudence

• The opinion relies exclusively on Utah authority: one Utah Court of Appeals decision (K.R.S.) and one Utah Supreme Court decision (Ross v. Kracht). No out-of-state or federal authority is cited.

Doctrinal Anchors (Utah Supreme Court)

• Ross v. Kracht, 2025 UT 22
  • What it established: The opinion does not restate Ross’s holding; it adopts Ross’s reasoning wholesale on the question of jurisdiction.
  • Role in this opinion: Ross is the sole basis for the court’s decision to retain jurisdiction over Father’s appeal. Practitioners must read Ross to understand the governing rule.

The Most Important Holding

• The court retained jurisdiction over an appeal from a termination order entered before the adoption petition was resolved, notwithstanding the court of appeals’ holding in K.R.S. that such orders are not immediately appealable. In re Adoption of B.C., 2025 UT 23, ¶¶ 3–4. The practical effect is that Father’s merits challenges will be heard rather than dismissed for lack of a final judgment.

Reversal Based on Legal Error vs. Factual Error

• There was no reversal or affirmance. The opinion is a threshold jurisdictional ruling, and the merits of the termination order remain pending supplemental briefing.
• Had the court applied K.R.S. without the Ross analysis, the likely outcome would have been dismissal of the appeal for lack of a final judgment rather than any ruling on the termination itself.

Practitioner Takeaways

• Trial Lawyers: When termination is sought within a stepparent adoption, recognize that the termination order and the adoption decree may be treated separately for finality purposes. Build a complete evidentiary record at the termination hearing, because that record will be the basis of any later appellate review.
• Appellate Lawyers: Do not rely on K.R.S. alone to assess appealability of a termination order in a pending adoption. Analyze Ross v. Kracht and this opinion together, and evaluate protective measures (such as a timely notice of appeal or other available routes to review) when finality is uncertain. These protective steps are practice suggestions; the opinion itself does not discuss them.
• Parents and Stepparents: A termination order entered during an adoption case may be subject to appellate review before the adoption is finalized, which can extend the time before the family’s legal status is settled.