Opinion
Case No. 20020809-CA.
Filed July 17, 2003. (Not For Official Publication)
Appeal from the Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Sharon P. McCully.
Taniela Fiefia, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Carol L. Verdoia, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Martha Pierce and Suchada P. Bazzelle, Salt Lake City, Guardians Ad Litem.
Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Orme.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
We have long held that because of their "`advantaged position with respect to the parties and the witnesses'" in assessing credibility, juvenile courts have considerable latitude in evaluating the evidence and finding the facts. In re P.H., 783 P.2d 565, 570 (Utah Ct.App. 1989) (quoting Robertson v. Hutchinson, 560 P.2d 1110, 1112 (Utah 1977)). A party challenging the juvenile court's findings of fact must marshal the evidence in support of those findings and then show that the marshaled evidence is "`legally insufficient to support th[ose] findings.'" In re J.M.V., 958 P.2d 943, 947 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (citations omitted). Furthermore, "findings of fact in a parental rights . . . proceeding are overturned only if they are clearly erroneous." In re S.T., 928 P.2d 393, 400 (Utah Ct.App. 1996).
Although Appellant has admirably complied with the marshaling requirement, she has not shown that the juvenile court's findings are clearly erroneous. We are persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings of fact.
Appellant does not separately attack the juvenile court's conclusions of law. Her challenge to the conclusions assumes a successful challenge to the findings, i.e., with invalidation of the court's pivotal findings, its conclusions of law necessarily fail.
While Appellant disagrees with the juvenile court's interpretation of the evidence, she cannot successfully argue weight and credibility on appeal. See In re J.N., 960 P.2d 403, 407 (Utah Ct.App. 1998). The Utah Supreme Court has held that it is the "`prerogative of the trier of fact'" to interpret the evidence. In re J.C.O., 734 P.2d 458, 462 (Utah 1987) (quoting Hall v. Anderson, 562 P.2d 1250, 1251 (Utah 1977)). Furthermore, even if we were sympathetic to Appellant's characterization of the facts, "[t]he mere fact that we could reach a different result than the juvenile court on the same evidence does not justify setting aside the juvenile court's findings." In re S.T., 928 P.2d at 401.
The juvenile court's findings of fact are supported by adequate evidence and thus are not clearly erroneous. Those findings readily support the court's conclusions of law. We therefore affirm the juvenile court's order.
WE CONCUR: Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge, and Russell W. Bench, Judge.