EXHIBIT A Order Denying Motion for Service By Publication & Order Dismissing ActionFouRTH DisTRICT JUVENILE COURT For UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH In the interest off DENIAL OF MOTION FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION & ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WOLFERTS, Sydney (5-24-1999) WOLFERTS, Danielle (10-29-2000) Case Numbers 1102018 and 1102019 Children under eighteen years old. Judge Brent H. Bartholomew This order denies the “Motion to Serve Sonja Michelle Wolferts by Publication” filed by Brittany Wolferts and dismisses the above-entitled action without prejudice. BACKGROUND 1. On June 26, 2014, a “Petition for Determination of Abuse & Neglect and Transfer of Custody, and Related Matters” was filed with the Court, 2. On October 15, 2014, the Court issued an “Order Denying ‘Motion to Enlarge Time for Service."” 3. On October 27, 2014, a “Motion to Serve Sonja Michelle Wolferts by Publication,” along with a supporting memorandum, was filed with the Court 4, On October 29, 2014, a “Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Serve by Publication” was filed with the Court. n the requisite five days (see 5. No reply to the opposing memorandum was filed wi Page 1 of 3Utah R. Civ. P, 7(c)(1)), but on November 3, 2014, an “Amended Petition for Custody and Guardianship” was filed with the Court under the same case number as the first petition, ANALYSIS The Court already has denied Brittany Wolferts’ request to enlarge the time for service. Her request for service by publication is just another way of seeking additional time for service. It also was filed outside the 120-day deadline for service. See below. Therefore, itis reasonable and proper that the “Motion to Serve Sonja Michelle Wolferts by Publication” be denied. Within its “Order Denying “Motion to Enlarge Time for Service,” the Court ordered “Brittany Wolfert's ‘Petition for Determination of Abuse & Neglect and Transfer of Custody, and Related Matters’ shall be dismissed without prejudice if proper service is not rendered upon Brittany's parents within 120 days from when her petition was filed.” Page 5, 2. The initial petition requesting custody of the minor children was filed June 26, 2014. The 120-day deadline for obtaining service upon both parents was October 24, 2014. The mother, Sonja Michelle Wolferts, was not served within the requisite time (as evidenced by the filing of the motion seeking service by publication, which has been denied by the Court). Furthermore, the filing of an amended petition under the same action after the deadline does not start the 120- day period for service all over again. Utah R. Civ. P. 4(b)(i) states: [The summons together with a copy of the complaint shall be served no later than 120 days after the filing of the complaint unless the court allows a longer period of time for good cause shown. If the summons and complaint are not timely served, the action shall be dismissed, without prejudice on application of any party or upon the court’s own initiative. Page 2 of 3Itis therefore reasonable and proper that the above-entitled action be dismissed without prejudice. ORDER I, ‘The “Motion to Serve Sonja Michelle Wolferts by Publication” filed by Brittany Wolfeits is denied 2. The “Petition for Determination of Abuse & Neglect and Transfer of Custody, and Related Matters” and the “Amended Petition for Custody and Guardianship” are dismissed without prejudice. In other words, the entirety of the above-entitled action is dismissed without prejudice. 3. ‘The Guardian ad Litem is released from his caurt appointed to represent the minor children. 4. ‘The Court jurisdiction over this matter is hereby terminated. Dated this 5” _ day of November, 2014 BY THE COURT BRENT {1 BARTHOLOMEW Juvenile Court Judge Filed: 05 NOVEMBER 2014 FOURTH DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT Page 3 0f3CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Jenny Jamison, Deputy Court Clerk of the Fourth District Juvenile Court, do hereby certify that I delivered a copy of the foregoing document to those listed below on Wednesday, November 05, 2014. Documents were mailed, emailed or served to the following: Ron Wilkinson, Attorney 11-05-2014 by email Sandra Dredge, Special Master 11-05-2014 by email Scott Weight, PD 11-05-2014 by email McKay Stirland, GAL 11-05-2014 by email Shelly Hansen ‘Trent Cahill, Attorney 11-05-2014 by emailEXHIBIT B Court's Decision Regarding "Motion To Make Findings And Conclusions Of Law"FOURTH DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT For UTAH CouNTY, STATE OF UTAH In the interest of: COURT'S DECISION REGARDING “MOTION TO MAKE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW” WOLFERTS, Sydney (5-24-1999) Case Numbers 1102018 and 1102019 WOLFERTS, Danielle (10-29-2000) Judge Brent H. Bartholomew Children under eighteen years old. Normally, a motion for more specific findings would be filed after this Court's written order had been issued, Ron Wilkinson, Brian Wolferts’ attomey, was instructed by this Court to prepare a proposed order from the hearing held July 11, 2014, and to date it has not been filed. Nonetheless, this Court has decided to address its previous decisions and actions for this matter in this “Court’s Decision Regarding ‘Motion to Make Findings and Conclusions of Law."” Mr. Wilkinson should include in the proposed order he prepares the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with any others that are pertinent from the hearing. CASE HISTORY 1. On June 26, 2014, a “Petition for Determination of Abuse & Neglect and Transfer of Custody, and Related Matters” was filed with this Court (although proof of service has not been submitted to this Court) requesting, in part that it ‘Award legal custody of the minor children to Ms. Wolferts, who previously in the petition is identified as the minor children’s mother (see page 3, |5); Page 1 0f9b. Appoint a Guardian ad Litem for the minor children; and ¢. “Request that DCFS provide CPS assistance .. Pages 27-28, 4f 1, 3, 5, and 7. 2. On June 30, 2014, a “Verified Motion for Ex Parte Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, Appointment of GAL, and Setting of Expedited Hearing” was filed with this Court 3. Based upon the representations made in the aforementioned documents, on June 30, 2014, the Court signed an “Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order, Appointment of GAL, and Setting of Expedited Hearing,” In part, the Court's order provided that: ‘a, Until the scheduled court hearing, the minor children should remain in the custody of their mother, “who is exercising her summer parent-time pursuant to Utah Code § 30-3-37.” b. A Guardian ad Litem be appointed to represent the minor children. ¢. Abhearing be held on July 11, 2014, at 3:30 pm. 4, On July 7, 2013, an “Expedited £x Parte Motion to Dismiss Ex Parte Order” and supporting documentation was filed with this Court by Ron Wilkinson on behalf of his client, Brian Wolferts, father. 5. On July 8, 2014, this Court entered a “Response to Expedited Bx Parte Motion to Dismiss Ex Parte Order,” indicating: The pleadings submitted July 7, 2014, on behalf of Mr. Wolferts indicated that Sandra Dredge, Special Master, has been. involved with the district court case, but they do not include a special master order nor do they specify if Ms. Dredge received a copy of Page 2 of 9the pleadings and what her recommendations for the handling the current situation would be. Page 1-2, 1g verification and clarification as to what authority the By doing so, this Court was see! special master had and whether she was currently involved with the district court case before taking any action to modify the original ex parte order. Subsequently, on July 8, 2014, “Affidavit of Sandra Dredge,” along with a copy of the special master order, was filed with this Court, 6. On July 8, 2014, this Court entered an “Order on Expedited Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Ex Parte Order” as well as an “Order Appointing GAL and Notice of CW-Pretrial Hearing.” 7. OnJuly 11, 2014, the day of the court hearing, the following were filed with this Court: a. “Notice of Appearance of James G. Clark as Counsel for Petitioner”; b. “Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Affidavit of Sandra Dredge,” which indicated that Ms. Dredge and Ron Wilkinson had been e-mailed that document on July 11, 2014 (there was no separate motion to strike filed with this Court, although the memorandum asks for relief); and . “Declaration of Dr. Randy Hyde.” 8, During the hearing held July 11, 2014, the Court reaffirmed its previous appointment of a Guardian ad Litem to represent the minor children. 9. Although on July 18, 2014, this Court entered and sent out a “Utah R. Civ. P. 100 Page 3 of 9Notice,” it has not yet called the Honorable Christine Johnson, District Court Judge, to discuss with her the merits of the juvenile court and district court cases. On the same date, this Court also sent a copy of Brittany Wolferts’ petition to Child Protective Services intake, 10. On July 18, 2014, James Clark, Counsel for Brittany Wolferts, filed a “Motion to Make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On June 26, 2014, “[a] referral was made to the Division of Child and Family Services prior to filing the “Petition for Determination of Abuse, Neglect and Transfer of Custody, and Related Matters." See page 2, 3; see also page 6,421. On that same day, a copy of the petition was provided “to an Assistant Attorney General for DCFS.” See id. page 6,421. 2, Brian Edgar Wolfers, father, “presently lives at 6705 SW 28" Street, Topeke, Kansas,” having relocated there from Pleasant Grove, Utah County, State of Utah since on or about December 27, 2013. ‘The minor children have resided with Mr. Wolferts since that time. See id. at page 3, 94. 3, Ms. Wolferts, mother, is the non-custodial parent of the above-named minor children ‘and presently lives at 1215 South 620 West, Orem, Utah, along with Brittany Wolferts, an adult daughter of the Wolferts and sister to the above-named minor children. See id. at page 3, $7 5-6. 4. On June 15, 2007, a bifurcated divorce was granted to Mr. and Ms. Wolferts by the Fourth District Court, Utah County, State of Utah. See id. at page 4,11. Afterward, ‘unresolved issues were tried and the final documents to conclude the Wolferts divorce were signed and entered on December 5, 2007. See id. at page 4, 9411-12. 5. Several months after entry of the final divorce decree, Ms. Wolferts filed to amend Page 4 0f9the decree, See id. at 4,4 14. On May 12, 2010, after Ms. Wolferts sought to modify the divorce decree and “prolonged litigation,” physical and legal custody of the Wolferts children were transferred to Mr. Wolferts. See id. at page 5, $f 15-16. “Thereafter, the children resided with Mr. Wolferts and had statutory visitation with Ms. Wolferts.” /d. at page 5, 417. 6. After it signed and entered the “Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order, Appointment of GAL, and Setting of Expedited Hearing,” this Court subsequently learned ‘as a result of the filing of the “Expedited Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Ex Parte Order” and supporting documents: a. Mr, Wolferts was represented by an attorney when the ex-parte motion was submitted by Brittany Wolferts through her attorney, Matt Hilton. b. There was an evidentiary hearing scheduled in Fourth District Court, ‘American Fork Department, Utah County, State of Utah regarding the above~ named minor children scheduled for September 4-5, 2014. ¢. The case number for the district court ease. 4. A special master had been appointed in the district court case. 7. Mr. Hilton knew of specific information regarding the district court case including, but not limited to: Mr. Wolferts having an attorney, the appointment of the special master, and the district court evidentiary hearing, as he had been involved with the district court case, See Fourth District Court records. Nevertheless, Mr. Hilton failed to disclose pertinent information from this Court. 8, This Court reviewed Brittany Wolferts’ motion and the supporting materials late June 30, 2014. This Court was unaware at that time of Mr. Wolferts’ telephone number because it was not included in the filed pleadings (so he was not contacted). Moreover, the pleadings did Page 5 of 9not include any information that Mr. Wolferts’ had an attorney, nor of attempts to contact, counsel (consequently, Mr. Wilkinson law office was not contacted). Furthermore, Mr. Hilton represented in the materials he filed that he was having serious medical problems and would not be available for this case from that time forward. If this Court had been provided Mr. Wolferts telephone number or this Court had known Mr. ‘Wolferts’ was represented by Mr. Wilkinson's office, it would have contacted either Mr. Wolferts’ or Mr. Wilkinson to get there side of the story. This Court signed the original ex parte order on June 30, 2014, to allow time for Mr. Wolferts being contacted before his family reunion commenced. 9. Had Mr. Hilton simultaneously filed Brittany Wolferts’ ex parte motion with her petition when it was filed with the Juvenile Court on June 26, 2014—and had not withheld pertinent information from this Court—this Court would have had the opportunity to Brittany Wolferts’ ex parte motion with both attomeys before making a decision. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‘This Court now makes the following conclusions: 1. The reason for this Court dismissing the original ex parte order was that it was improperly obtained. Matt Hilton, Brittany Wolferts’ attorney, knew that Mr. Wolferts was represented by legal counsel, yet this information was concealed from this Court. Had this information been properly submitted, the Court would have contacted Mr. Wolferts’ attorney and obtained relevant information germane to whether it should have signed the original ex parte order. 2. Brittany Wolferts also knew or could have easily found out and should have known Page 6 of 9Mr. Wolferts was represented by counsel before seeking an ex parte order. Brittany lives with her mother, used the same attorney as her mother, and was seeking custody of the minor children for Ms. Wolferts. 3. Even though the original ex parte order was dismissed, Mr. Wolferts missed the family reunion with his children and the children remained with Ms. Wolferts. In essence, Brittany Wolferts still got relief she sought—preventing Mr. Wolferts from taking the minor children on his family reunion. 4, On July 8, 2014, an order was entered appointing a Guardian ad Litem to represent the minor children and that appointment was confirmed at the hearing on July 11, 2014. The Court expects the GAL to talk with the minor children, as well Brittany Wolferts and the parents with their respective counsel's permission, and take appropriate action on behalf of the minor children, 5. One of the reasons the hearing on July 11, 2014, was not vacated is because this Court had no way of knowing until the day of the hearing that Brittany Wolferts was represented by counsel. In a pleading filed on her behalf by Mr. Hilton, Brittany had requested that counsel be court appointed for her, which cannot be done for non-state commenced actions. Another purpose the July 11 hearing fulfilled was to confirm that this Court still expected the Guardian ad Litem to look after the best interests of the children. 6. Withholding information from this Court, the timing of Brittany Wolferts’ ex parte motion, and her attempting to seek custody of the minor children for her mother through the juvenile appears as if Brittany Wolferts was attempting to forum shop for her mother. Page 7 of 97. Whether or not the special master’s recommendations are stricken is irrelevant to this Court's dismissing the original ex parte order and cannot circumvent that relevant information withheld from this Court and Brittany Wolferts appears to have been forum shopping for her mom. This Court has not ruled on the request to strike the special master’s affidavit because the time for responding has not expired and a request for a decision has not been filed. 8. Atthe hearing on July 11, 2014, this Court was premature in scheduling a pretrial date without service being properly rendered upon Mr. Wolferts, soit is reasonable and proper for that pretrial date to be vacated. Nevertheless, another pretrial date may be scheduled for a date and time after Mr. Wolferts has been properly served and given the requisite time to respond to Brittany Wolferts’ petition. 9. Utah R. Civ. P, 100 (b) and (c) states: ‘The judge or commissioner assigned to a case in which child custody, child support, or parent time is an issue shall communicate and consult with any other judge or commission assigned to any other pending case involving the same issues ‘and the same parties or their children. The objective of the communication is to the consider the feasibility of consolidating the cases before one judge or commissioner or of coordinating hearings and orders, The judges and commissioners may allow the parties to participate in the communication. If the parties have not participated in the communication, the parties shall be given notice and the opportunity to present facts and arguments before a decision to consolidate the cases. (Emphasis added.) The district court and juvenile cases both address the issue of what time the same minor children should spend with their parents. This Court has not yet discussed the merits of either case with Judge Johnson. There is no reason to do so until Mr. Wolferts has been properly served and the time has elapsed for responding to Brittany Wolferts’ most recent pleading. See “Motion to Make Findings and Conclusions of Law,” C. Communication with Judge Johnson, Page 8 of 9pages 4-6. Rule 100 is clear, however, in cases involving the same children that address child custody or parent time issues, the judges of pending cases “shall communicate and consult” with fone another.” See (a). The purpose of such communication is to avoid duplicate or contradictory court measures. In the process, the judges may or may not “allow the parties to participate in the communication.” 1d. Dated this 25" day of July, 2014. BY THE COURT: BRENT H. BARTHOLOMEW Juvenile Court Judge “thy as comune Filed: 28 JULY 2014 FOURTH DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT By Se } feputy Clerk \ ~~) Page 9 of 9EXHIBIT C Court's Decision Regarding Motion To Strike Affidavit & Order Vacating Pretrial HearingFourts District JUVENILE CourT For UTAH Counry, STATE OF UTAH In the interest of: COURT'S DECISION REGARDING MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIDAVIT & ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL HEARING WOLFERTS, Sydney (5-24-1999) Case Numbers 1102018 and 1102019 WOLFERTS, Danielle (10-29-2000) Judge Brent H. Bartholomew Children under eighteen years old. This decision addresses the “Motion (o Strike Affidavit of Sandra Dredge” filed by legal counsel for Brittany Wolfers, adult sibling of the above-named minor child. It also vacates the previously scheduled pretrial hearing for this matter. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On June 26, 2014, Brittany Wolferts (through her legal counsel at that time, Matthew Hilton) filed with this Court a “Petition for Determination of Abuse & Neglect and Transfer of Custody, and Related Matters.” 2. To date, Brittany has not filed any proof with the Court that the minor children’s parents have been served with the above-referenced petition. 3. On July 11, 2014, Brittany (through her legal counsel at that time, James Clark) Page 10f 5filed a "Memorandum in Support of ‘Motion to Strike Affidavit of Sandra Dredge.” Although this memorandum requests that Ms. Dredge’s affidavit be stricken, Brittany did not file her “Motion to Strike Affidavit of Sandra Dredge” until September 11, 2014. 4, On July 17, 2014, Brittany filed a “Motion to Make Findings and Conclusions of Law.” Accompanying that motion was a “Memorandum in Support of Motion to Make Findings and Conclusions of Law.” 5. On July 28, 2014, the “Court's Decision Regarding ‘Motion to Make Findings and Conclusions of Law’” was issued. That decision provided in part: Normally, a motion for more specific findings would be filed after this Court's written order had been issued. Ron Wilkinson, Brian Wolferts' attorney, was instructed by this Court to prepare a proposed order from the hearing held July 11, 2014, and to date ithas not been filed. Nonetheless, this Court has decided to address its previous decisions and actions for this matter in this “Court's Decision Regarding ‘Motion to Make Findings and Conclusions of Law.”" Mr. Wilkinson should include in the proposed order he prepares the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with any others that are pertinent from the hearing. 7, Whether or not the special master’s recommendations are stricken is irrelevant to this Court's dismissing the original ex parte order and cannot circumvent that relevant information withheld from this Court and Brittany Wolferts appears to have been forum shopping for her mom. This Court has not ruled on the request to strike the special master’s affidavit because the time for responding has not expired and a request for a decision has not been filed. 8. At the hearing on July 11, 2014, this Court was premature in scheduling a pretrial [hearing] date without service being properly rendered upon Mr. Wolfers, so itis reasonable and proper for that pretrial date to be vacated. Nevertheless, another pretrial date may be scheduled for a date and time after Mr. Wolferts has been properly served and given the requisite time to respond to Brittany Wolferts’ petition. Pages 1 and 8. Page 2 of 5inson has not yet submitted a proposed order from the July 11, 2014, hearing. 7. On September 8, 2014, a “Notice to Submit for Decision” was filed with the Court. 8. On September 11, 2014, the “Motion to Strike Affidavit of Sandra Dredge” was filed with the Court, although this pleading has no certificate of service indicating who, besides the Court, was provided a copy of that motion. 9. On September 17, 2014, a “Notice of Appearance of Counsel” was filed with the Court indicating that Scott Weight and Trent Cahill of Weight and Esplin, Attorneys at Law, were entering their appearance to represent Brittany Wolferts. Mr. Weight and Mr. Cahill provided a copy of their notice to the minor children's Aorney Guardian ad Litem, McKay Stirland, but there is no indication within their certificate of service that their notice was provided to Mr. Wilkinson as well as the minor children’s mother. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the foregoing findings, the Court concludes: 1. “An application to the court for an order shall be by motion. ...” Utah R. Civ. P. 7 (b)(1). “All motions, except uncontested or ex parte motions, shall be accompanied by a supporting memorandum. Utah R. Civ. P, 7 (e)(1). 2, “Within ten days after service of the motion and supporting memorandum, a party ‘opposing the motion shall file a memorandum in opposition.” Jd. 3. It is reasonable and proper to conclude that the “Motion to Strike Affidavit of Sandra Dredge” is not ready for a decision because a copy of that motion has not been provided to all requisite partes. Page 3 ofS4, It is reasonable and proper to conclude that the previously scheduled pretrial hearing for this matter should be stricken because the requisite parties have not yet been served with a copy of Brittany Wolferts’ petition. 5, Itis reasonable and proper to conclude that Mr. Weight and Mr. Cahill are now Brittany Wolferts’ legal counsel. 6. Itis reasonable and proper to conclude that Brian Wolferts’ attorney, Ron Wilkinson, should still prepare and submit a proposed order from the July 11, 2014, hearing (according to Utah R. Civ. P 7 (0). ORDER Having made the foregoing findings and conclusions, the Court makes the following decisions and orders: 1, The Court will not decide on Brittany Wolferts’ “Motion to Strike Sandra Dredge’s Affidavit” until itis assured that the requisite parties each have received a copy of that motion and the prescribed time period for responding has elapsed. 2. The pretrial hearing previously scheduled for October 6, 2014, at 2:00 pm is vacated. 3. The Court will not schedule another pretrial hearing for this matter until proof of service for each of the minor children's parents is filed with the Court. Page 4 of S4, Mr. Wilkinson should still prepare and submit a proposed order from the July 11, 2014, hearing in accordance with Utah R. Civ. P. 7 (1). Dated this_22 day of September, 2014 BY THE COURT: BRENT H. BARTHOLOMI Juvenile Court Judge Filed: 22 SEPTEMBER 2014 FOURTH DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT By: pat Clerk Page Sof 5CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 1, Le Davis, Deputy Court Clerk of the Fourth District Juvenile Court, do hereby certify that I delivered a copy of the foregoing document to those listed below on Monday, September 22, 2014. Documents were mailed, emailed or served to the following: Ron Wilkinson, Attorney 09-22-2014 by email McKay Stirland, Guardian Ad Litem 09-22-2014 by email Shelly Hansen. Scott Weight, Atomey 09-22-2014 by email Sandra Dredge, Special Master 09-22-2014 by email ‘Trent Cahill, Atomey 09-22-2014 by emailEXHIBIT D Motion To Enlarge Time For ServiceTRENT CAHILL (9742) SCOTT WEIGHT (14027) EspPLin | WEIGHT 290 West Center Street POBox L Provo, Utah 84603-0200 ‘Telephone: 801.373.2912 Facsimile: 801.371.6964 E-mail: scott@esplinweight.com Attorneys for Petitioners IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT, PROVO DEPARTMENT IN AND FOR UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH, STATE OF UTAH In the Interest of: Wolferts, Sydney (May 24 1999) Wollerts, Danielle (October 29, 2000) A person(s) under 18 years of age. MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR SERVICE | Case: 1102018, 1102019 Judge: Brent H Bartholomew COMES NOW, Petitioner, and, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, move the Court to enlarge the time to serve Respondent Brian Wolferts, DATED this 22™ day of September 2014. EspLin | WEIGHT Attomeys for Petitioners is! Scott Weight BY: SCOTT WEIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAWESPLIN | WEIGHT Attorneys for Petitioners si Trent Cahill BY: TRENT CAHILL ATTORNEY AT LAW MAILING CERTIFICATE Thereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing, as indicated below, on this 22™ day of September, 2014, to the following: james Clark LAW OFFICE OF JAMES CLARK 143 East 200 North rove, Utah 84606 Tiand delivery Guvenile court drop box) Facsimile USS. Mail (postage prepaid) E-mail jcKay Stirland ‘Guardian ad litem 22 West Center Street, #205 Provo, UT 84601 McKays@utcourts.gov (Client name (Client address Sent via: Facsimile USS. Mail (postage prepaid) E-mail “Hand delivery Guvenile court drop box) Facsimile ULS. Mail (postage prepaid) E-mail E Hand delivery Guvenile court drop box) Arissa Moore SecretaryTRENT CAHILL (9742) SCOTT WEIGHT (14027) EsPLin | WEIGHT 290 West Center Street POBox L Provo, Utah 84603-0200 Telephone: 801.373.2912 Facsimile: 801.371.6964 E-mail: scott@esplinweight.com Attorneys for Petitioners IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT, PROVO DEPARTMENT IN AND FOR UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR STATE OF UTAH | SERVICE, In the Interest of: Wolferts, Sydney (May 24 1999) Wolferts, Danielle (October 29, 2000) Case: 1102018, 1102019 | | | Judge: Brent H Bartholomew A person(s) under 18 years of age. COMES NOW Petitioner and submit this Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enlarge Time for Service as follows: FACTS 1. Petitioner, Brittany Wolferts filed a Petition to determine that Brian Wolferts, (Father) abused and neglected the above named minor children. 2, FedEx delivered the package, but did not have Father sign for it 3. A hearing was held, wherein attomey Ron Wilkinson appeared for Father. However, Father had not been served, nor did attomey Ron Wilkinson accept service on Father's behalf.4, Brittany Wolferts’ attomey was also expecting the juvenile court to serve Father, however, the juvenile court did not serve Father. 5 An appeal was filed with the Utah Court of Appeals on that issue and that Court recently ruled that service had not occurred 6. Michelle Wolferts is the minor children’s mother and she cannot be located. Petitioner will move the Court to allow service by publication in a separate motion, ARGUMENT Rule 6 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure states: (b)(1) When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if'a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires Here, there is good cause. The Petitioners assert that the minor children have been abused and neglected by their Father and that they would suffer substantially if retumed to his custody. ‘Therefore, the Petitioners have sought the aid of the Juvenile Court. Efforts have been made to serve Father, but it appears that Father may have avoided service. Petitioner's claim will be prejudiced if the time to serve the petition is not granted. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court should extend the time for Petitioners to serve Father. DATED this 22" day of September 2014. is/ Scott Weight BY: SCOTT WEIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW‘Trent Cahill BY: TRENT CAHILL ATTORNEY AT LAW MAILING CERTIFICATE Thereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing, as indicated below, on this 22 day of September 2014, to the following: james Clark /AW OFFICE OF JAMES CLARK 3 East 200 North ovo, Utah 84606 (cKay Stirland (Guardian ad litem 32 West Center Street, #205 ovo, UT 84601 vicKays(@utcourts.gov Tient name lient address ‘Sent via [Hand delivery Guvenile court drop box) Facsimile US. Mail (postage prepaid) E-mail Hand delivery Guvenile court op box) Facsimile US. Mail (postage prepaid) E-mail Hand delivery Guvenile court drop box) Facsimile USS. Mail (postage prepaid) E-mail Arissa Moore SecretaryEXHIBIT E Order Denying "Motion to Enlarge Time For Service"Fourtu DistRICT JUVENILE COURT For Uran COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH In the interest of: ORDER DENYING “MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR SERVICE” Case Numbers 1102018 and 1102019 ee ea Judge Brent H. Bartholomew WOLFERTS, Danielle (10-29-2000) Children under eighteen years old. This “Order Denying ‘Motion to Enlarge Time for Service” is in response to Brittany Wolferts’ motion filed by her legal counsel of her behalf. BACKGROUND 1. On June 26, 2014, a “Petition for Determination of Abuse & Neglect and Transfer of Custody, and Related Matters” was filed with this Court (although proof of service has not been submitted to the Court). 2. When the petition was filed with the Court, Brian Edgar Wolferts (father), was living “at 6705 SW 28" Street, Topeka, Kansas,” having relocated there from Pleasant Grove, Utah County, State of Utah since on or about December 27, 2013. ‘The minor children had resided with Mr. Wolferts since that time. See id. at page 3, 9/4. 3. Ms. Wolferts, mother, is the non-custodial parent of the above-named minor children Page 1 of 5of the petition lived at 1215 South 620 West, Orem, Utah, along with and at the time of the Brittany Wolferts, an adult daughter of the Wolferts and sister to the above-named minor children. See id. at page 3, 5-6. 4, On June 15, 2007, a bifurcated divorce was granted to Mr. and Ms. Wolferts by the Fourth District Court, Utah County, State of Utah, See id. at page 4, 11. Afterward, unresolved issues were tried and the final documents to conclude the Wolferts divorce were signed and entered on December 5, 2007. See idl at page 4, $f] 11-12 5. Several months after entry of the final divorce decree, Ms. Wolferts filed to amend the decree. See id. at 4,4 14. On May 12, 2010, after Ms. Wolferts sought to modify the divorce decree and “prolonged litigation,” physical and legal custody of the Wolferts children were transferred to Mr. Wolferts. See id. at page 5, $9) 15-16. “Thereafter, the children resided with Mr. Wolferts and had statutory visitation with Ms. Wolferts.” Jd. at page 5, 417. 6. On June 30, 2014, a “Verified Motion for Ex Parte Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, Appointment of GAL, and Setting of Expedited Hearing” was filed with this Court 7. Based upon the representations made in the aforementioned documents, on June 30, 2014, the Court signed an “Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order, Appointment of GAL, and Setting of Expedited Hearing.” 8, On July 7, 2013, an “Expedited Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Ex Parte Order” and supporting documentation was filed with the Court by Ron Wilkinson on behalf of his client, Brian Wolfers, father. 9, Afterward, the Court dismissed the original ex parte order because it was improperly Page 2 of Sobtained. Matt Hilton, Brittany Wolferts’ attomey at the time, knew that Mr. Wolferts was represented by legal counsel, yet this information was concealed from the Court. Had this information been properly submitted, the Court could have contacted Mr. Wolferts’ attorney and obtained relevant information germane to whether it should have signed the original ex parte order. 10. Brittany Wolferts also knew or could have easily found out and should have known Mr. Wolferts was represented by counsel before seeking an ex parte order. Brittany lived with her mother, used the same atiomney as her mother, and was seeking custody of the minor children for Ms. Wolferts 1. Even though the original ex parte order was dismissed, Mr. Wolferts still missed the family reunion he wanted to attend his children, and the children remained with Ms. Wolferts. In essence, Brittany Wolferts still got relief she sought—preventing Mr. Wolferts from taking the minor children to his family reunion. 12, Withholding information from the Court, the timing of Brittany Wolferts’ ex parte motion, and her attempting to seek custody of the minor children for her mother through the juvenile court makes it appear as if Brittany Wolferts was attempting to forum shop for her mother. 13. On or about September 22, 2014, a “Motion to Enlarge Time for Service,” along with supporting documents, were filed with the Court. Copies of these documents were provided to ‘opposing counsel on September 29, 2014, and the deadline of October 14, 2014, for responding has come and gone without a response. Page 3 of 5ANALYSIS 14, Utah R. Civ. P 4 (b)(i) provides: [T]he summons together with a copy of the complaint shall be served no later than 120 days after the filing of the complaint unless the court allows a longer period of time for good cause shown. Ifthe summons and complaint are not timely served, the action shall be dismissed, without prejudice on application of any party or upon the court's own initiative. 15, There has been plenty of time to properly serve petitioners in this matter despite Brittany Wolferts’ arguments to the contrary. In fact when the” Motion to Enlarge Time for Service” was filed with the Court, there was about four weeks still remaining of the 120-day deadline to effectuate service. 16. The best time for serving petitioners would have been shortly after filing the petition. Although Brittany represents she was relying upon the Court to effectuate service, it is not the ity to serve petitioners with a summons and the petition—it is hers. Another Court's responsi opportunity for service would have been when the minor children were to be returned to their father. Brittany argues that she was waiting until after an appellate interlocutory appeal was complete, but service during this time could and should have been pursued. Furthermore, Brittany does not mention why she has not attempted personal service upon Brian Wolferts through a process server. Brittany does mention that she needs additional time to serve her mother through alternate service, but she fails to mention why her mother cannot now be located when the two had been living in the same residence on friendly terms. 17. There are other questions that remained unanswered: Page 4 of 5a. The current status of the district court case involving the Wolferts’ minor children. b. With whom Brittany and her siblings now residing, ¢. How Brittany can pursue custody of her siblings when she has not alleged any neglect or abuse of the minor children by her mom. 18, The Court cannot find good cause for her procrastinating serving the summons and petition. Ifservice cannot be properly rendered afier the 120 days for doing so has elapsed (by October 24, 2014), itis reasonable and proper that the Court should dismiss Brittany's petition without prejudice. ORDER 1. Brittany Wolferts’ “Motion to Enlarge Time for Service” is denied. 2. Furthermore, Brittany Wolfert’s “Petition for Determination of Abuse & Neglect and Transfer of Custody, and Related Matters” shall be dismissed without prejudice if proper service is not rendered upon Brittany's parents within 120 days from when her petition was filed. Dated this _/ 5 October, 2014. BY THE COURT: BRENT H. BARTHOLOMEW Juvenile Court Judge Filed: 15 OCTOBER 2014 FOURTH DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT Page 5 of 5CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 1, Le Davis, Deputy Court Clerk of the Fourth District Juvenile Court, do hereby certify that 1 delivered a copy of the foregoing document to those listed below on Wednesday, October 15, 2014. Documents were mailed, emailed or served to the following: Ron Wilkinson, Attorney 10-15-2014 by email Scott Weight, Attomey 10-15-2014 by email Sandra Dredge, Special Master 10-15-2014 by email MeKay Stirland, Guardian Ad Litem 10-15-2014 by email Shelly Hansen Trent Cahill, Attorney 10-15-2014 by emailEXHIBIT F Motion To Serve Michelle Wolferts By Publication‘TRENT CAHILL (9742) SCOTT WEIGHT (14027) EspLin | WEIGHT 290 West Center Street PO Box L. Provo, Utah 84603-0200 Telephone: 801.373.2912 Facsimile: 801.371.6964 E-mail:tcahill@esplinweight.com scott@esplinweight.com Attorneys for Petitioner IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT, PROVO DEPARTMENT IN AND FOR UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH 2021 South State, Provo, UT 84606 MOTION TO SERVE MICHELLE eee WOLFERTSS BY PUBLICATION In the Interest of: Wolferts, Sydney (May 24 1999) Wolferts, Danielle (October 29, 2000) | Case: 1102018 and 1102019 Judge: Brent H Bartholomew A person(s) under 18 years of age, Petitioner, Brittany Wolferts, through her attorneys of record hereby request that the Court allow Michelle Wolferts to be served by publication. This motion is supported by a memorandum herewith filed, DATED this 24" day of October 2014, EspLin | WEIGHT is/ Trent V. Cahill Attomey for Brittany WolfertsEXHIBIT G Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Serve Michelle Wolferts By PublicationTRENT CAHILL (9742) SCOTT WEIGHT (14027) Esetiw | WEIGHT 290 West Center Street PO Box L. Provo, Utah 84603-0200 Telephone: 801.373.2912 Facsimile: 801.371.6964 E-mail:teahill@es it. esplinweight.com Attorneys for Petitioner IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT, PROVO DEPARTMENT IN AND FOR UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH 2021 South State, Provo, UT 84606 STATE OF UTAH In the Interest of: Wolfers, Sydney (May 24 1999) Wolferts, Danielle (October 29, 2000) A person(s) under 18 years of age, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SERVE SONJA MICHELLE WOLFERTS BY PUBLICATION Case: 1102018 and 1102019 Judge: Brent H Bartholomew Petitioner, Brittany Wolferts, through her attomeys of record submits this memorandum in support of her Motion to Serve Michelle Wolferts by Publication. BACKGROUND 1. Brian Wolferts (“Father”) is the father of the minor children at issue in this case. 2. Sonja Michelle Wolferts (“Mother”) is the mother of the minor children at issue in this case.3. Petitioner is the adult sister of the minor children and is seeking to protect her minor sisters. 4, In July 2014, the minor sisters ran away. 5, In August 2014, Mother left the home in which she had been residing and has not returned, 6. Petitioner does not know or have any idea where Mother is (see verified Formal ‘Advisement Letter dated October 22, 2014, attached as an exhibit. ARGUMENT Mother has not resided with Petitioner since August 2014. Mother has failed to attend court hearings at the District Court regarding her divorce. Mother failed to provide either this Court or the District Court, where post-divorce matters are occurring, with her current address. Based on Mother's actions, Petitioner believes that Mother is avoiding contact with the Court and that an altemative method of service is required. Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure (“URJP”) Rule 2 (a) states: “When the proceeding involves neglect, abuse, dependency, permanent deprivation of parental rights, adoption, status offenses or truaney, the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure (*URCP”) shall apply inconsistent with these rules.” Rule 4(b)(ii), URCP states: “In any action brought against two or more defendants on which service has been timely obtained upon one of them, (b)(ii)(A) the plaintiff may proceed against those served, and (b)(i)(B) the others may be served or appear at any time prior to trial.”URIP, Rule 18, provides that the clerk shall schedule an initial hearing unless otherwise directed by the Court. In this case, the Court has elected not to schedule a hearing at this time. ‘Therefore, Petitioner desires to serve Mother with a 21 day Summons in accordance with Utah Rules of Civil Procedure (*URCP”) and by publication, In accordance with URCP, Rule (d)(4)(A) Petitioner requests the Court allow Mother to be served by publication in the following manner because the “whereabouts of [Mother] are unknown and cannot be ascertained through reasonable diligence... 1. Once a week for three weeks in the Daily Herald (a newspaper of general circulation in Utah County, where Mother was last known to reside); and 2. On the Utah legal notice website http://www.utahlegals.comy The published Notice would be similar to the following: In the Fourth Judicial Juvenile Court, Provo Department, Utah County, State of Utah. State of Utah to Sonja Michelle Wolferts ‘You are hereby Summoned and required to file an Answer in writing to the Petition for Determination of Abuse and Neglect and Transfer of Custody and Related Matters (or its amended version) with the Clerk of the above entitled Court at 2021 South State, Provo, UT 84606 and to serve upon, or mail to Trent V. Cahill, Esplin Weight, 290 West Center, Provo, Utah 84601, a copy of said Answer within 21 days after the first day on which this Summons is published in the Daily Herald, where it will be published once per week for three consecutive weeks. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in said petition. This Summons is served upon you by Court order. That order, along with ‘a copy of the petition may be obtained upon request from the Clerk of the above Court. DATED this 24" day of October 2014. ESPLIN| WEIGHT is! Trent V. Cahill ‘Attomey for Brittany Wolferts 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on October 24, 2014 I did email the clerk of the 4" District Juvenile Court and request filing of the Motion to Serve Sonja Michelle Wolferts by Publication, Memorandum in Support of Motion to Serve Sonja Michelle Wolferts by Publication, and the Formal Advisement Letter. In that same email I did serve Ron Wilkinson, attorney for Brian Wolferts and McKay Stirland, guardian ad litem. I also emailed Sandra Dredge, special master I the divorce case as a courtesy. ent V. Cahill isl Trent V. Cahill