 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State12/2/2004
thing in the plain language of the Act requires a juvenile court to consider possible kinship placements when deciding whether termination is in the best interest of the child.
The juvenile court properly applied Utah law with regard to the termination of D.P.A.'s parental rights. The juvenile court's alleged failure to comply with section 78-3a-307(5)(a) has no bearing on the propriety of the termination order. Because D.P.A.'s parental rights were properly terminated, he has no residual legal interest in issues pertaining to the children's custody.
II. Federal Immigration Law
D.P.A. contends that federal immigration law precluded the juvenile court from terminating his parental rights to W.P.O., who is a citizen of Mexico. D.P.A. argues that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to terminate parental rights because W.P.O. was not granted "special immigrant" status under federal immigration law. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(j) (2004). However, D.P.A. points to no statutory language that prevents the juvenile court from terminating parental rights in a child who is not accorded special immigrant status. Nor does the federal statute prevent the juvenile court from making custody determinations concerning a noncitizen juvenile who does not have special immigrant status. See id. In short, D.P.A. cites no authority that would preclude the juvenile court from taking jurisdiction over this matter.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the juvenile court's order terminating the parental rights of D.P.A. is affirmed.
Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge
WE CONCUR:
James Z. Davis, Judge
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge
Page 1 2 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|