## Facts

- DCFS filed a juvenile delinquency petition against J.J.W. based on allegations that he sexually abused his sister.
- J.J.W. admitted the allegations, and DCFS treated the abuse report as substantiated.
- Consistent with DCFS policy, DCFS placed J.J.W.’s name on its child-abuser registry (its internal database tied to substantiated findings).
- The juvenile court adjudicated J.J.W. delinquent and ordered counseling and community service.
- After J.J.W. turned eighteen, he petitioned to expunge his juvenile record.
- In 1996, the juvenile court granted the petition and ordered the juvenile court and the city police department to expunge their records related to J.J.W.’s delinquency.
- DCFS was not notified of the 1996 expungement proceeding, and the 1996 order did not direct DCFS to expunge anything.
- In 1998, Utah enacted a law requiring DCFS to notify individuals listed on the abuser registry of their right to challenge substantiated findings; in some situations, a successful challenge could result in removal from the registry.
- J.J.W. learned he remained listed when he received DCFS’s statutory notice and then sought a hearing through the Department of Human Services (DHS), the agency overseeing DCFS.
- At the DHS hearing, J.J.W. argued that the 1996 juvenile-court expungement order applied to DCFS records, but DHS did not resolve that contention and instead directed DCFS to conduct a risk assessment on whether J.J.W. should remain listed.
- J.J.W. then filed a petition in juvenile court asserting DCFS was bound by, and violating, the 1996 expungement order.
- DCFS moved to dismiss; J.J.W. moved for summary judgment. The juvenile court denied the motion to dismiss, granted summary judgment to J.J.W., and ruled that its 1996 expungement order applied to DCFS’s substantiation and related records.
- DCFS appealed, arguing (among other things) that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction under the Utah Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) to order expungement of DCFS records.

## Issues

1. Whether a juvenile court has authority, after expunging juvenile-court and police records of a delinquency matter, to apply that expungement order to DCFS’s substantiated abuse finding and abuser-registry records.
2. Whether UAPA’s administrative review scheme bars a juvenile court from ordering DCFS to expunge or alter its registry records outside the UAPA process.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s order that applied the 1996 expungement order to DCFS’s substantiation and registry records.
- The court held that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to order DCFS to expunge or change its administrative records because challenges to DCFS substantiation and registry placement must proceed through the administrative process and judicial review authorized by UAPA.
- The court concluded that the 1996 expungement order—directed to the juvenile court and the city police department, and entered without notice to DCFS—did not operate as an order binding DCFS to expunge its own records.

## Legal Principles

- A juvenile court’s expungement authority is defined by statute and does not automatically extend to executive-agency records maintained under a separate statutory scheme.
- DCFS substantiation determinations and related registry listings are administrative actions subject to the review procedures set by the Legislature, including administrative hearings and any judicial review provided by UAPA.
- Courts generally may not bypass the statutory administrative-review framework by treating a challenge to an agency’s substantiated finding as an attempt to enforce a prior juvenile-court expungement order.
- An expungement order directed at identified custodians of court or law-enforcement records does not, without notice and a direct command, compel a separate agency to remove independent administrative records.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals ruled that the juvenile court’s 1996 expungement order—limited to juvenile-court and city police records—did not require DCFS to erase its substantiated abuse finding or remove J.J.W. from the abuser registry, and that any effort to contest DCFS’s substantiation or continued registry listing must be pursued through the administrative process and UAPA-based review rather than through juvenile-court enforcement.


J.J.W. v. State of Utah, Division of Child and Family Services, 33 P. 3d 59 (2001)