of the party in the Complaint is deficient in some respect!" Id. at 370 (quoting 6A Wright, Miller & Kane Federal Practice and Procedure § 1498, at 130 (1990)). The supreme court also stated: Furthermore "[ilf the body of the complaint correctly identifies the party, or if the proper person has actually-been served with process, courts generally will allow an amendment under [rJule 15 to correct technical defects in the caption. This seems appropriate inasmuch as a defective caption or even its complete absence is merely a formal error and never shall be viewed as a fatal defect." Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1821, at T28-30 (1990); see also Sulzen v. Williams, 1999 UT App 76, ¶15, 977 P.2d 497 (<HOLDING>). The Geneve Rock case also determined that
recognizing duty of parent to control conduct of child holding when real estate is conveyed to a child and consideration is paid by the parent the parent has the burden of proving a gift was not intended holding that juveniles may not waive counsel unless parent or guardian also waives that right recognizing that a foster parent may attain the status of psychological parent when the relationship is not temporary in duration and exists with the consent and encouragement of a childs legal parent or guardian holding relation back permitted where a complaint misnamed a parent as guardian rather than the child by and through the parent as guardian