JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES JOHN D. LUTHY and AMY J. OLIVER concurred.
CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:
¶1 Following a multi-day bench trial, the juvenile court entered an order terminating A.M.’s (Mother) parental rights to her child, M.M. (Child). Mother contends the court erred in denying her reunification services and in concluding termination of her parental rights was strictly necessary. Because Mother has not persuaded us that the court committed reversible error, we affirm its order terminating Mother’s parental rights.
¶2 Mother is the biological parent of three children: Child, born in 2015; A.M. (Sister), born in 2018; and B.B. (Brother), born in 2019. All three children have different biological fathers. This appeal concerns only Child. Nevertheless, a complete understanding of the events giving rise to this case necessitates a recounting of the background as it relates to all three children.
¶3 In December 2016, prior to the birth of Sister and Brother, Child’s maternal grandmother (Grandmother) and maternal step-grandfather (Grandfather) noticed “large bruises on [Child’s] hips and thighs when they put him into the bath.” The following day, a caseworker from the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) met with Grandmother and Grandfather and examined Child. The caseworker observed the same bruising on Child that had been seen the day before, as well as a “small bruise in [Child’s] hairline above his forehead.” Child was transported to the hospital where a doctor observed the bruising and opined that “the bruising is concerning for abuse because of its location, linear component, the large size, and the lack of history explaining them.”
¶4 A few months later, in February 2017, Child was brought to the hospital for a breathing treatment for his asthma. While at the hospital, a doctor again observed “linear bruising on [Child’s] buttocks,” which she described as a “classic bruise found with spanking or inflicted trauma.” She explained the bruising was consistent with “excessive,” “repeated high-force spanking.”
¶5 During the time of these injuries, Child had been residing with Mother, Mother’s husband (Stepfather),[2] Grandmother, and Grandfather, and he had also attended daycare. Ultimately, no one was able to provide an explanation for the bruising. As a result, the juvenile court concluded that Child “has been abused by an unknown perpetrator” and adjudicated him dependent as to Mother. The court allowed Child to remain with Mother, contingent on her compliance with a safety plan and completion of court-ordered services. In December 2017, after Mother had received a year of services, the court terminated its jurisdiction and returned permanent custody and guardianship of Child to Mother.
¶6 The following month, Sister was born. Brother was born a year and a half later.
¶7 In August 2019, Brother suffered a series of abusive episodes. First, Mother said she “fell going down some stairs” while holding Brother. Thereafter, Brother’s father picked Brother up from a babysitter and became concerned that Brother was vomiting and appeared dehydrated. Brother was taken to the doctor for examination but was sent home with his father because the cause of the vomiting was “undetermined.” A few weeks later, Brother’s father again observed that Brother had been vomiting and appeared dehydrated. Brother was taken to the hospital for examination.
¶8 Upon examination, Brother’s head appeared “swollen.” A subsequent CT scan revealed a “large” brain bleed and a skeletal survey revealed “multiple healing rib fractures.” A doctor evaluated Brother the following day and expressed that Brother’s initial vomiting was “consistent with the brain injury” and a “sign” that the brain injury had occurred. She noted that although Brother’s head circumference had not been measured during his initial visit to the doctor, by the time of his second visit—which occurred approximately two weeks later—Brother “had a massive head.” She also opined that Brother’s injuries were caused by one of his caregivers and were “consistent with inflicted trauma and child abuse.” When questioned, both parents denied any involvement or knowledge of injuries to Brother. However, based on her conversation with both parents, the doctor had “much more concern” that Mother had caused Brother’s injuries.
¶9 Based on Brother’s injuries, the State filed a verified petition for custody and guardianship on behalf of all three children in August 2019. In the petition, the State asked the juvenile court to find that “[Brother] is severely abused by [Mother]” and that Child and Sister were “siblings at risk” and “neglected” as to Mother.
¶10 Over the next several months, the juvenile court transferred temporary custody of Sister and Brother to their respective fathers. Although the State requested that Child be removed from Mother’s custody, the court allowed Child to remain home with Mother on the condition that she comply with a safety plan. The safety plan required “line of sight supervision” by Grandmother and Grandfather for “any contact” between Mother and Child. But Mother did not abide by the safety plan, and in January 2020, after a DCFS caseworker observed a series of three events of non-compliance, the court transferred Child to DCFS’s custody, finding that Mother had “substantially endangered” Child’s welfare. Child was then placed in a foster care home.
¶11 In July 2020, Mother appeared before the juvenile court for adjudication of the State’s verified petition for custody.[3] After negotiations with Mother, the State agreed to amend the petition by removing the allegation that Mother had severely abused Brother, replacing it with an allegation that Brother suffered “severe physical abuse while in the care of [Mother].” Following this amendment, Mother proceeded with adjudication and entered a plea pursuant to rule 34(e) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure by which she neither admitted nor denied the allegations but they were deemed admitted as a matter of law.
¶12 At the close of the hearing, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Brother had suffered “severe physical abuse while in the care of [Mother].” Accordingly, the court found that “[Sister] and [Child] are siblings at risk” and were “neglected” as to Mother. In addition to adjudicating the children’s statuses, the court also substantiated the DCFS supported finding of severe physical abuse of Brother while in Mother’s care. The court ordered that Brother and Sister continue in the temporary custody of their respective fathers and that Child continue in the custody of DCFS.
¶13 Shortly thereafter, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing during which it resolved the custody petition as to Brother and Sister by granting custody and guardianship to their respective fathers and terminating jurisdiction. The court requested briefing on the issue of whether Mother should be provided reunification services for Child. Citing the allegations that Mother physically abused her children, even after receiving court-ordered services, as well as Child’s success in his current foster placement, the State and the guardian ad litem (GAL) argued that reunification services were not in Child’s best interest and accordingly requested that services not be provided. In September 2020, the court entered an order denying reunification services to Mother.[4] In April 2021, the court set Child’s primary permanency goal as adoption with his current foster parents.
¶14 The next month, the State filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child. The matter proceeded to an eight-day bench trial that took place in March and April 2022.
¶15 At trial, several therapists who had provided mental health services to Mother testified. All agreed that Mother suffered from trauma and that treatment was needed to address it. These therapists further testified that while Mother had attended some therapy sessions, Mother had either canceled, rescheduled, or failed to attend many of the sessions, and that although Mother had made some progress in therapy, she still had a long way to go to process her trauma.
¶16 Child’s therapist and foster parents testified regarding Child’s communications with them, as well as Child’s improvements since his removal from Mother’s custody. Child’s therapist explained that Child suffered from “separation anxiety disorder and unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder” but that these conditions had greatly improved while Child was living with his foster parents. Likewise, Child’s foster mother testified that Child had grown emotionally while in her care. She detailed Child’s emotional bonds with the members of his foster family and recounted how it was “an easy decision” to pursue adopting Child. Moreover, Child’s therapist and foster mother both testified that Child had reported witnessing Mother “hit his sibling on the head” and that Child had also reported that Mother had hit him.
¶17 Following trial, the juvenile court issued an order terminating Mother’s parental rights to Child. The court found the testimony and evidence presented to be true, and therefore concluded that the State had proved by clear and convincing evidence three statutory grounds for termination. The court also found that it was in Child’s best interest and strictly necessary to terminate Mother’s parental rights. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted it had “considered the specific circumstances” of the case, including Child’s “wishes to remain in his current foster home” and the feasibility of an alternative to termination, such as a permanent guardianship.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶18 Mother now appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to Child, raising two issues for our review. First, Mother argues the court erred when it refused to order reunification services to her. We review the juvenile court’s interpretation of the law for correctness; however, “[t]he ultimate decision whether to provide or deny reunification services is a determination that we review for abuse of discretion.” In re Z.G., 2016 UT App 98, ¶ 4, 376 P.3d 1077.
¶19 Second, Mother argues the juvenile court erred when it concluded that termination of her parental rights was strictly necessary. “We review deferentially a lower court’s best-interest determination and will overturn it only if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 18, 520 P.3d 38 (quotation simplified).
ANALYSIS
I. Reunification Services
¶20 Mother first argues the juvenile court erred when it denied reunification services to her. Specifically, she contends the court misinterpreted the law and abused its discretion when it (1) failed to provide the “necessary findings for the presumption against reunification services to apply” and (2) improperly weighed the statutory factors a court must use when determining whether to order reunification services.
¶21 After a juvenile court adjudicates a child as abused, neglected, or dependent, the court must conduct a dispositional hearing. See Utah Code § 78A-6-311(1) (2020). At that hearing, if the court orders that the child continue in the custody of DCFS, the court shall (1) “establish a primary permanency plan” and (2) “determine whether, in view of the primary permanency plan, reunification services are appropriate.” Id. § 78A-6-312(2).
¶22 The decision to order reunification services is therefore discretionary with the juvenile court, and “parents have no constitutional right to receive these services.” In re A.K., 2015 UT App 39, ¶ 15, 344 P.3d 1153 (quotation simplified); see also In re N.R., 967 P.2d 951, 955–56 (Utah Ct. App. 1998); Utah Code § 78A6-312(20)(a) (2020). Accordingly, we will overturn the court’s decision only if it “either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 31, 496 P.3d 58 (quotation simplified).
¶23 In determining whether to order reunification services, the child’s “health, safety, and welfare shall be the court’s paramount concern.” Utah Code § 78A-6-312(5) (2020). And in making this determination, the juvenile court must consider a non-exclusive list of statutory factors, including the following:
· “failure of the parent to respond to previous services or comply with a previous child and family plan;”
· “the fact that the minor was abused while the parent was under the influence of drugs or alcohol;”
· “any history of violent behavior directed at the child or an immediate family member;”
· “whether a parent continues to live with an individual who abused the minor;”
· “any patterns of the parent’s behavior that have exposed the minor to repeated abuse;”
· “testimony by a competent professional that the parent’s behavior is unlikely to be successful; and”
· “whether the parent has expressed an interest in reunification with the minor.”
Id. § 78A-6-312(23). However, in cases involving “obvious sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment, severe abuse, or severeneglect,” the court has no duty to provide services. Id. § 78A-6-312(4). And several circumstances—if found by clear and convincing evidence—create “a presumption that reunification services should not be provided to a parent.” Id. § 78A-6-312(21).
¶24 Before the juvenile court, the State and the GAL argued that reunification services should not be offered to Mother. While only the State argued that the presumption against providing services should apply, both parties argued that the statutory factors weighed in favor of denying reunification services. Ultimately, the court denied services, finding they were not “appropriate” “given the fact that [Mother] had services before.”
¶25 Mother takes issue with the juvenile court’s determination on two grounds. As an initial matter, she asserts the court made “no findings in its reunification order, much less findings by clear and convincing evidence,” that would allow the court to apply the presumption against providing reunification services. But even if Mother’s assertion is correct and a presumption against reunification services does not apply in this case, Mother ignores that the court may still properly deny services regardless of whether a presumption exists.[5] And on the facts of this case, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that denying reunification services to Mother was appropriate.
¶26 Next, Mother asserts the juvenile court improperly weighed the statutory factors a court must consider when determining whether to provide reunification services. According to Mother, “four[6] of the seven factors weigh in favor of granting Mother reunification services” and “the remaining three factors do not tip the balance towards not offering reunification services.” We disagree.
¶27 First, Mother contends the juvenile court improperly determined she had failed to respond to reunification services in the past. See Utah Code § 78A-6-312(23)(a) (2020) (requiring courts to consider the “failure of the parent to respond to previous services or comply with a previous child and family plan” when determining whether to order reunification services). She claims that the dismissal of the first protective services case in December 2017 and the full restoration of custody of Child shows she responded to services and complied with her previous family plan. But in concluding that this factor weighed against Mother, the court considered Mother’s compliance in the first protective services case as well as her actions after that case was closed. The court explained,
I see that you’ve had services before on [Child]. We had a [protective supervision services] case. . . . You engage in services. We think things are good. We close the case.
Then not much longer . . . we have a severe abuse to [Child]’s younger sibling . . . . We’ve already done reunification services or services by DCFS for you on [Child] and here we are again with a severely abused child.
¶28 This explanation is sufficient to show that the court adequately considered whether Mother had failed to respond to previous reunification services. The court weighed Mother’s prior compliance against her actions following the completion of the original services. Because the court’s decision is not “against the clear weight of the evidence,” a “measure of deference is owing” to the court’s decision. In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 32 (quotation simplified). Accordingly, we will not perform an “independent ‘reweighing’ of the evidence” but will instead “respect[]” the court’s decision. Id.
¶29 Second, Mother contends the juvenile court improperly weighed against her the factors concerning “any history of violent behavior directed at the child or an immediate family member” and “any patterns of the parent’s behavior that have exposed the minor to repeated abuse.” See Utah Code § 78A-6-312(23)(c), (e) (2020). Specifically, Mother asserts these factors do not weigh against her because she “was not adjudicated as abusing [Child] in 2017,” there are “no other allegations” that Child or Sister have been otherwise injured, and it has “never been established that Mother harmed [Brother].”
¶30 But Mother’s arguments on this point ignore substantial record evidence indicating that Mother did have a history of violent behavior directed at Child or Child’s immediate family members and that Mother’s behavior exposed Child to repeated abuse. While Mother is correct that she was not adjudicated as abusing Child in 2017, Child’s statements to his foster mother and therapist provide substantial evidence of Mother’s history of violent behavior toward Child and other immediate family members. Notably, the juvenile court found that during a therapy session, Child credibly reported to his therapist that he had witnessed Mother “hit his sibling on the head.” And at trial, Child’s foster mother testified that on multiple occasions, Child told her that Mother had hit him. Further, as the juvenile court found, Child, Brother, and Sister were all exposed to repeated abuse while in Mother’s care. Indeed, Child and Sister were found to be “siblings at risk” and “neglected” based on Mother’s rule 34(e) plea to the allegation that Brother suffered “severe physical abuse while in the care of [Mother].” This exposure occurred subsequent to the court’s 2017 determination that Child had been “abused by an unknown perpetrator” during a time when Mother “was the primary caregiver.”
¶31 The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by deciding not to order reunification services for Mother. In reaching this decision, the court evaluated the evidence before it, and Mother has not demonstrated that the court’s decision was against the clear weight of the evidence.[7]
II. Strictly Necessary
¶32 Next, Mother argues the juvenile court erred in determining it was strictly necessary to terminate her parental rights to Child. In particular, Mother contends the court’s strictly necessary analysis was “improperly brief and conclusory.”
¶33 “Because the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected, a court may only terminate parental rights upon a finding that termination is strictly necessary to the best interest[] of the child.”[8] In re S.T., 2022 UT App 130, ¶ 25, 521 P.3d 887 (quotation simplified). “This analysis should be undertaken from the child’s point of view, not the parent’s.” In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 63, 472 P.3d 827 (quotation simplified).
¶34 When evaluating whether termination is strictly necessary,
the juvenile court must address whether “the child can be equally protected and benefited by an option other than termination.” Id. ¶ 66. This inquiry cannot be satisfied merely by relying on the “categorical concern” that adoption offers the highest degree of permanency. In re J.A.L., 2022 UT 12, ¶ 25, 506 P.3d 606. Instead, the court must analyze the “particularized circumstances of the case” and “explore whether other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family, short of imposing the ultimate remedy of terminating the parent’s rights.” In re S.T., 2022 UT App 130, ¶ 26 (quotation simplified). If another option exists where “the child can be equally protected and benefited,” then “termination is not strictly necessary” and “the court cannot order the parent’s rights terminated.” In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 66.
¶35 In determining that it was strictly necessary to terminate Mother’s parental rights, the juvenile court explicitly stated that it “considered whether a placement with Permanent Guardianship would equally protect and benefit [Child].” Ultimately, the court decided against such an arrangement, finding it was not in Child’s best interest “as it does not provide the permanency that he seeks and wishes for.” Citing In re J.A.L., 2022 UT 12, 506 P.3d 606, Mother contends this conclusion was error because it is based on the categorical concern that a permanent guardianship is not as permanent as an adoption.[9] Mother’s argument is unavailing, however, because it selectively focuses on the court’s conclusion without considering it in the fuller context.
¶36 Here, the juvenile court was not presented with any feasible alternative option for a permanent guardianship placement, nor has Mother proposed one on appeal. At the time of trial, the only individuals that had previously been involved in the case were not feasible placement options. Indeed, Grandfather had failed to comply with the safety plan by allowing Mother to interact with Child outside his “line of sight,” which ultimately led to Child’s removal; Grandmother and Mother were estranged; and the State had initiated termination proceedings for Father.[10] Consequently, there was “no other option, short of termination and adoption, that would have otherwise been apparent to the juvenile court.” See In re D.G., 2022 UT App 128, ¶ 8 n.2, 522 P.3d 39, cert. denied, 527 P.3d 1106 (Utah 2023). And “where only one feasible custody option exists, the categorical concern that adoption is more stable than a permanent guardianship is not implicated.” In re S.T., 2022 UT App 130, ¶ 32 n.6 (quotation simplified).
¶37 In sum, given Child’s “strong emotional ties with [his] foster parents,” see id., and the lack of “any remotely feasible alternatives to termination and adoption,” see In re D.G., 2022 UT App 128, ¶ 8 n.2, it was entirely proper for the juvenile court to find that it was strictly necessary to terminate Mother’s parental rights.[11]
CONCLUSION
¶38 The juvenile court did not err in terminating Mother’s parental rights to Child. The court’s decision to deny Mother reunification services was not an abuse of discretion because the court’s decision is well supported by evidence in the record. And the court did not err when it found that termination of Mother’s parental rights was strictly necessary because there were no feasible alternative placement options other than termination and adoption. Affirmed.
[1] “We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the juvenile court findings.” In re S.T., 2022 UT App 130, n.2, 521 P.3d 887 (quotation simplified).
[2] Stepfather and Mother married one day after DCFS made the initial home visit to observe Child. Prior to the marriage, Stepfather spent “multiple nights in a row” in the home with Mother and Child.
[3] Although the juvenile court adjudicated Child’s status as to Mother in July 2020, the written order was not entered until August 2021—approximately one year after the adjudication hearing. Mother appealed the written adjudication order, arguing that she was deprived of due process by the court’s delay in entering the order, but this court affirmed.
[4] At the time reunification services for Mother were denied, an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) request form had been sent to Child’s biological father (Father), who resides in South Carolina. Following denial of services for Mother, the juvenile court changed Child’s primary permanency goal from reunification with Mother to reunification with Father with a concurrent goal of adoption. During a subsequent permanency hearing, the court terminated reunification services to Father due to his failure to comply with any of the three ICPC requests initiated by DCFS and changed Child’s primary permanency goal to adoption with his current foster parents. Father’s parental rights to Child were then terminated in June 2022.
[5] Moreover, Mother’s position on this point seems to ignore the juvenile court’s own explanation of its reasoning to deny reunification services. At the disposition hearing, the court explicitly agreed with Mother’s counsel that Child did not qualify as a “severely abused child,” which would create a presumption against providing services. As a result, the court stated, “I don’t really attach the presumption that [Mother] should not receive reunification services. I’m kind of looking towards the presumption that she should . . . .”
[6] These factors are (1) “the fact that the minor was abused while the parent was under the influence of drugs or alcohol,” (2) “whether a parent continues to live with an individual who abused the minor,” (3) “testimony by a competent professional that the parent’s behavior is unlikely to be successful,” and (4) “whether the parent has expressed an interest in reunification with the minor.” See Utah Code § 78A-6-312(23)(b), (d), (f), (g) (2020).
[7] Mother challenges the adequacy of the juvenile court’s findings in support of its decision not to order reunification services by asserting that “the juvenile court made no findings in its reunification order.” But Mother’s assertion is overbroad; the juvenile court did make explicit factual findings regarding a number of the facts we have noted as supportive of its determination not to order services. And, while we acknowledge that the court did not explicitly disclose all the analytic steps it took in deciding not to provide services, this is a case where the court’s “unstated findings can be implied” because “it is reasonable to assume that the [juvenile] court actually considered the controverted evidence and necessarily made . . . finding[s] to resolve the controversy, but simply failed to record the factual determination[s] made.” Fish v. Fish, 2016 UT App 125, ¶ 22, 379 P.3d 882 (quotation simplified). It is not a case “where there is a matrix of possible factual findings and we cannot ascertain the [juvenile] court’s actual findings.” Hall v. Hall, 858 P.2d 1018, 1025–26 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quotation simplified). The evidence and arguments presented below, coupled with the juvenile court’s decision not to order services, necessarily imply that the juvenile court found the factors in Utah Code subsections 78A-6312(23)(c) and (e) weigh against the provision of services based on the findings and evidence we have outlined above. Although on this record the unstated steps of the juvenile court’s analysis can be implied, we caution courts to ensure that the analytic steps taken in support of such fact-sensitive decisions are fully articulated in an oral or written ruling, order, or judgment. Detailed findings aid appellate review and reduce the likelihood of reversal.
[8] “To terminate a parent’s rights, Utah law requires that both elements of a two-part test are satisfied. First, the court must find that one or more of the statutory grounds for termination are present. Second, the court must find that termination of the parent’s rights is in the best interest[] of the child.” In re S.T., 2022 UT App 130, ¶ 25 n.5, 521 P.3d 887 (quotation simplified). Here, Mother acknowledges the juvenile court properly found at least one ground to terminate her parental rights. Accordingly, our focus is limited to only the court’s best interest determination.
[9] In a related vein, Mother also asserts the juvenile court’s decision was conclusory because the court focused only on negative testimony and overlooked the positive testimony of several of Mother’s therapists. But this position ignores that “Lilt is the role of the juvenile court, not this court, to assess the weight and credibility of expert witnesses and to choose among their testimonies.” In re G.V., 916 P.2d 918, 920 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (per curiam). As such, we decline to reweigh the evidence.
[10] The lack of alternative options was reiterated through the trial testimony of Child’s great-uncle (Uncle). Uncle testified that Mother and Grandfather were estranged, largely due to Grandfather’s role in having Child removed from Mother’s custody, and that Mother and Grandmother were estranged because Grandmother is “a very toxic individual” and “abusive toward” Mother. Uncle also explained that although he wanted to be “involved” with Child, he was not in a position for Child to be placed with him. Lastly, Uncle noted that his brother had applied for Child to be placed with him, but his application was not approved.
[11] We again caution juvenile courts to “adequately disclose[]”— either in an oral or written ruling—all the “analytic steps” they take when they conduct a best interest analysis. Keiter v. Keiter, 2010 UT App 169, ¶ 21, 235 P.3d 782 (describing a challenge to the adequacy of findings as raising the issue of whether “the findings as a whole adequately disclosed the analytic steps taken by the trial court”). Here, however, even assuming that the court’s articulation of its strictly necessary analysis could have or even should have been more robust, without any feasible alternatives to termination and adoption, Mother cannot show that the court’s finding on this point was against the clear weight of the evidence. See generally In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 19, 520 P.3d 38 (“[I]n some instances (e.g., where the existence of a particular option would not be readily apparent to the court), a parent may need to expressly ask a [juvenile] court to consider a specific non-termination option in order to properly preserve the right to argue, on appeal, that the court did not adequately consider that option.”). But in cases where a feasible alternative placement option does exist, a court assessing strict necessity must explain, “on the record,” why adoption and termination of the parent’s rights would better further the child’s best interest than the alternative option. See In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 74, 472 P.3d 827.
Before terminating a parent’s rights, the court must find that termination is “strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest.” This analysis must be undertaken from the child’s point of view. Utah lawprovides that termination is strictly necessary only when, after exploring possible placements for the child, the juvenile court concludes that no other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family, short of imposing the ultimate remedy of terminating the parent’s rights. If the child can be equally protected and benefited by an option other than termination (such as permanent custody and guardianship awarded to someone other than the parent or parents), termination is thus not strictly necessary. The strictly necessary analysis is designed to ensure that the court pause long enough to thoughtfully consider the range of available options that could promote the child’s welfare and best interest. If a court has complied with its statutory obligations, its resultant best interest determination is entitled to deference by an appellate court. Long-term guardianship arrangements are typically only in a child’s best interest where the guardians and the parent have a working, relatively healthy relationship in which they are both willing to work together to preserve the parent-child relationship and where the child has a healthy relationship with both the guardian and the parent. Thus, when a parent and potential guardian have little to no relationship, the particular circumstances of the case may indicate that permanent custody and guardianship will not meet the children’s needs as well as termination of parental rights. This post is a summary of the law as stated in the recent Utah Court of Appeals opinion in the case of In re K.R. – 2023 UT App 75 (filed July 13, 2023).
Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Monica Diaz
No. 1207437
Kelton Reed and Lisa Lokken
Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, John M. Peterson, and Carol L.C.
Verdoia, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, DAVID N.
MORTENSEN, and AMY J. OLIVER.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 R.S. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights with respect to K.R. (Brother) and R.B. (Sister) (collectively, the children). Mother alleges the juvenile court exceeded its discretion in determining that it was strictly necessary to terminate her rights rather than awarding permanent custody and guardianship to the children’s maternal grandmother (Grandmother). We affirm.
¶2 In January 2022, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) received a report that Mother was using drugs and neglecting Sister, who was an infant at the time. Four-year-old Brother was already living with Grandmother, and DCFS soon placed Sister with Grandmother as well.
¶3 Following a disposition hearing, the Court set a primary goal of reunification and set up a child and family plan. Mother received an initial substance abuse and mental health assessment but made no progress toward receiving treatment. She took only five of ninety-six required drug tests and tested positive on all five.
¶4 Nevertheless, Mother continued to demonstrate an attachment to the children. She participated in visits with the children on a bi-weekly basis, although she did miss some visits and had not seen the children for several weeks prior to the termination trial. The visits were supervised by a DCFS caseworker (Caseworker), and the children had to travel six-and-a-half hours round trip to attend. On some occasions, Mother cancelled visits without notifying Grandmother, leading the children to make the trip unnecessarily. Brother became upset when Mother missed visits with him.
¶5 Early on, Caseworker observed Mother having “inappropriate conversations” with Brother regarding Grandmother, such as telling him that Grandmother was not properly caring for him. Caseworker would redirect Mother to more appropriate topics, and “with reminders, this behavior . . . stopped.” Mother engaged with the children during visits and planned activities for them to do together.
¶6 Grandmother and Mother used to have a good relationship, but it had deteriorated due to Mother’s drug use and the DCFS case. According to Grandmother, Brother’s behavior would “deregulate[] for a couple days” after visits with Mother and he would become belligerent toward Grandmother. Mother would send Grandmother insulting text messages, and she had trouble respecting boundaries Grandmother set. Both women indicated they would not be comfortable “co-parenting” with one another.
¶7 Following the termination trial, the juvenile court found several grounds for termination, which Mother does not challenge on appeal. The court then turned to the best interest analysis, including the question of whether termination of parental rights was strictly necessary.
¶8 The court considered whether awarding permanent guardianship to Grandmother was an alternative to termination that could “equally protect and benefit the children.” However, the court ultimately determined that termination was strictly necessary for the following reasons:
· Mother and Grandmother “do not have a relationship” and are “unable to communicate regarding the children’s needs and wellbeing.” And while Grandmother attempts to set reasonable boundaries, Mother does not respect them. Mother herself acknowledged that “having her and [Grandmother] co-parent would not be healthy for the children.”
· Mother had a history of making inappropriate comments regarding Grandmother to Brother during parent time. These comments led Brother to become belligerent toward Grandmother following visits. Although Mother had stopped making such comments at the direction of Caseworker, the court was concerned that she would “revert to making these comments, without the oversight of the Division.” The court found that pitting the children against their caregiver in this way was “unhealthy” for their “emotional development and wellbeing.”
· Visits with Mother “are emotionally hard on the children.” Brother experiences behavioral problems after visits with Mother.
· The children have to travel six-and-a-half hours round trip to visit Mother. Because Mother does not communicate with Grandmother, she does not let her know when she is unable to attend visits. This has led the children to “endure the travel time needlessly.” Additionally, it is emotionally hard on Brother when Mother misses visits. The long travel time, emotional harm due to missed visits, and Mother’s inability to communicate with Grandmother combine to undermine the children’s stability. “They need to know that their relationships are stable and that they can count on the adults in their lives. . . . [Mother] missing visits undermines and disregards the children’s psychological and emotional security.”
· The children are happy and thriving in Grandmother’s care. She addresses their physical, mental, developmental, and emotional needs. The children are bonded to their extended family, which consists of Grandmother’s husband and other children living in Grandmother’s home. The children “need a permanent home,” and “[f]rom the children’s point of view, that home is [Grandmother’s] home.”
Based on these factors, the court found that termination of Mother’s parental rights was “strictly necessary from the children’s point of view.”
¶9 Mother challenges the juvenile court’s determination that termination of her rights was strictly necessary. “Whether a parent’s rights should be terminated presents a mixed question of law and fact.” In re B.W., 2022 UT App 131, ¶ 45, 521 P.3d 896 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1269 (Utah 2023). “We will overturn a termination decision only if the juvenile court either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” Id. (quotation simplified).
¶10 Mother asserts (1) that the court did not appropriately weigh certain evidence and (2) that the court inappropriately focused on the needs of the adults rather than the children by basing its decision on Mother and Grandmother’s inability to “coparent” the children.
¶11 Before terminating a parent’s rights, the court must find that termination is “strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest.” In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 60, 472 P.3d 827. And this analysis must be undertaken from the child’s point of view. See Utah Code § 80-4-301(1); In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 64. “Termination is strictly necessary only when, after exploring possible placements for the child, the juvenile court concludes that no other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family, short of imposing the ultimate remedy of terminating the parent’s rights.” In re J.P., 2021 UT App 134, ¶ 15, 502 P.3d 1247 (quotation simplified). “If the child can be equally protected and benefited by an option other than termination, termination is not strictly necessary.” Id. (quotation simplified).
¶12 The strictly necessary analysis “is designed to ensure that the court pause long enough to thoughtfully consider the range of available options that could promote the child’s welfare and best interest.” In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 69. “[I]f a court has complied with its statutory obligations, its resultant best interest determination is entitled to deference.” In re B.W., 2022 UT App 131, ¶ 69. Thus, a parent’s mere dissatisfaction “with the manner in which the juvenile court weighed the evidence . . . has no traction on appeal.” In re J.P., 2021 UT App 134, ¶ 23.
¶13 Mother argues that the court’s finding that Brother was upset when she missed visits should weigh against a finding that termination was strictly necessary. She also asserts that the court should have given more weight to her recent history of stopping her inappropriate comments to Brother rather than inferring that she was likely to resume such comments in the future. These arguments ultimately take issue with “the manner in which the juvenile court weighed the evidence” rather than its compliance with its statutory mandate. See id. The court’s findings are entitled to deference, and we will not disturb them on appeal. See In re B.W., 2022 UT App 131, ¶ 69.
¶14 Mother next asserts that the court’s focus on her and Grandmother’s inability to “co-parent” the children was inappropriate and led it to consider the strictly necessary analysis from the adults’ perspective rather than the children’s perspective. See Utah Code § 80-4-301(1) (dictating that the strictly necessary analysis must be undertaken from the child’s point of view). Mother argues that a permanent custody and guardianship order does not result in “co-parenting” but rather involves “the Guardian call[ing] the shots” while “the parent has a handful of residual rights.” We take Mother’s point that co-parenting may not have been quite the right term to use in describing the relationship between a parent and a permanent guardian.[1] However, we are more concerned with the substance of the court’s analysis than the term it used. And that analysis indicates that the court’s true concern was whether it was in the children’s best interests to be pitted between a parent and guardian who could neither cooperate nor communicate with one another.
¶15 “[L]ong-term guardianship arrangements are typically only in a child’s best interest where the guardians and the parent have a working, relatively healthy relationship in which they are both willing to work together to preserve the parent-child relationship and where the child has a healthy relationship with both the guardian and the parent.” In re J.P., 2021 UT App 134, ¶ 22 (quotation simplified). Thus, when a parent and guardian have “little to no relationship,” the particular circumstances of the case may indicate that permanent custody and guardianship will not meet the children’s needs as well as termination of parental rights. See id. That is what the juvenile court found here, and such a finding was not an abuse of its discretion under the circumstances.
¶16 Furthermore, we are not convinced that the juvenile court inappropriately conducted the strictly necessary analysis from the adults’ point of view rather than that of the children. The court explicitly discussed the effect Mother and Grandmother’s inability to cooperate had on the children, finding that being put in the middle of the conflict was “unhealthy” for the children’s “emotional development and wellbeing” and undermined their stability, that the children suffered when Mother did not communicate with Grandmother about missing visits, and that Mother herself acknowledged that the conflict was “unhealthy” for the children. These findings indicate that the court considered the conflict between Mother and Grandmother from the children’s point of view in determining that the conflict made termination of Mother’s rights strictly necessary.
¶17 The juvenile court here carefully considered whether the children could be equally benefited and protected by a permanent custody and guardianship arrangement as opposed to termination of Mother’s parental rights. It also made detailed findings in support of its determination that termination was strictly necessary from the children’s point of view. Accordingly, the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights is affirmed.
[1] Nevertheless, as the guardian ad litem observes, it is not apparent from the record that Mother was “up to the tasks involved with residual parental rights,” given that she has not paid child support, has not respected the boundaries Grandmother has put in place, has not progressed past supervised visitation, and has disappointed the children by failing to communicate about missed visits.
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF M.S., A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
R.S. AND J.S.,
Appellants,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Opinion
No. 20210657-CA
Filed July 6, 2023
Fourth District Juvenile Court, Spanish Fork Department
The Honorable F. Richards Smith
No. 1186449
Emily Adams, Sara Pfrommer, Freyja Johnson, and
Hannah Leavitt-Howell, Attorneys for Appellants
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and
John M. Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE GREGORY K. ORME authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES DAVID N. MORTENSEN and RYAN D. TENNEY concurred.
ORME, Judge:
¶1 R.S. (Mother) and J.S. (Father) (collectively, Parents) appeal the juvenile court’s award of temporary custody of their infant son, M.S. (Child), to the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) following a shelter hearing and the court’s later finding that Child was neglected. We hold that Parents’ first argument is moot but conclude that their second argument satisfies the collateral consequences exception to mootness. And because the juvenile court did not make the necessary findings of fact and conduct the required analysis of whether Parents’ medical decisions for Child were “reasonable and informed,” we reverse the court’s neglect adjudication.
BACKGROUND[1]
¶2 Child was born on March 6, 2020, weighing 9.63 pounds. During her pregnancy, Mother had gestational diabetes—a condition which has been linked to increased birth weights. Therefore, while not off the charts, Child’s somewhat larger birth weight was likely caused by Mother’s gestational diabetes. Child was also born with elevated bilirubin levels and was prescribed photo light therapy for jaundice, which Parents administered for the next ten days. Hospital staff informed Mother that Child needed to be seen by a pediatrician three days following discharge from the hospital. Mother complied with the instruction and made an appointment to see a pediatrician (First Pediatrician) at a nearby clinic on March 9.
¶3 By the time of the appointment, Child had lost 12.5% of his birth weight, weighing in at 8.42 pounds. First Pediatrician found Child “to be in good health” overall, but he was concerned about Child’s elevated bilirubin levels and weight loss. Although weight loss is typically expected immediately after birth for infants whose mothers had gestational diabetes, First Pediatrician noted Child’s weight “to be more down than we usually would expect at that time.” First Pediatrician recommended a follow-up appointment “in the next day or two” to check on Child’s bilirubin levels and weight. No such follow-up appointment took place.
¶4 First Pediatrician saw Child again about two-and-a-half weeks later, on March 26. Father took Child to this appointment because Mother did not appreciate First Pediatrician’s “bedside manner” and she did not feel that he had been “very willing to listen to [her] concerns.” At this appointment, Child weighed in at 7.96 pounds, which according to First Pediatrician was a total weight loss of approximately 18% of Child’s original birth weight. First Pediatrician told Father that because Child had lost even more weight, he was concerned that Child was not getting sufficient nutrients from Mother’s breast milk—which was Child’s sole source of nourishment. First Pediatrician became even more concerned when he learned that Child had not had a bowel movement in three days. First Pediatrician explained that while exclusively breast-fed babies can sometimes “go a few days” without producing stool, this information combined with the weight loss caused him to further worry that Child’s nutritional needs were not being met.
¶5 First Pediatrician recommended that Mother pump so that they could quantify the amount of milk she was producing and that Child be given formula every few hours and be weighed each day so it could be determined whether “there was appropriate weight gain with a known specified amount of volume he was taking in.” Father expressed doubt whether this was something Mother would “go for” because they preferred to exclusively breast-feed Child, but he said he would discuss the recommendations with her. First Pediatrician wrote down his recommendations on a note for Father to give to Mother and said for her to contact him if she had any questions. He also tried to contact Mother both during and after the appointment but was unsuccessful.
¶6 First Pediatrician also emphasized the importance of a follow-up appointment the next day to check Child’s electrolyte levels and weight, which instruction he also included in his written note to Mother. At this point, First Pediatrician was “[v]ery concerned” about Child’s health and safety and noted in Child’s file, “If labs are not obtained and no visits happen, I will report to DCFS.”
¶7 Neither parent brought Child in for the labs and weight-check the following day. When First Pediatrician learned this, he called Mother to express his concerns. Mother stated that she was not aware of the missed appointment, that she was out of town, and that she would not be able to come in with Child that day. Mother informed First Pediatrician that she was feeding Child more often, but she was not giving him formula. She repeatedly thanked First Pediatrician for his recommendations and told him she would “take them under consideration.” At the end of the conversation, they both agreed that Mother should find another pediatrician for Child. Mother subsequently scheduled an appointment with another pediatrician for April 2 but did not relay this information to First Pediatrician. She also increased the frequency of Child’s breast-feedings to every two hours, and she immediately filled and began administering a medication for diaper rash First Pediatrician had prescribed during the March 26 appointment.
¶8 Following the phone conversation, First Pediatrician contacted DCFS and reported Parents’ apparent medical neglect and physical neglect of Child and Child’s failure to thrive. First Pediatrician later testified that even if he had known that Child had an appointment with another pediatrician set for April 2, his concerns would not have been eased. He explained that he had ordered labs on Child’s electrolyte levels because his “biggest concern” was that if Child became dehydrated, he would develop “elevated sodium levels in the blood . . . that could potentially cause a lot of health problems” such as lethargy, seizures, and neurological damage. First Pediatrician stated that “the problem with the elevated sodium is more of an urgent or emergent problem that could have been developing, and so it couldn’t have waited” until the April 2 appointment.
¶9 On March 30, a DCFS caseworker (Caseworker) followed up with First Pediatrician, who expressed his concern that Child was at risk of dehydration, which could lead to further health complications. Following the conversation, Caseworker had a difficult time locating and communicating with Parents. When Caseworker called one of the phone numbers provided to her, a man Caseworker believed to be Father answered. He was skeptical that Caseworker worked for DCFS, and the conversation proved unfruitful. After visiting multiple addresses on file for the family to no avail, Caseworker contacted law enforcement officers, who were able to locate Mother, Father, and Child in a motel by “pinging” their cellphone.
¶10 Caseworker arrived at the motel around 1:00 a.m. on April 1. Law enforcement was already at the motel and officers informed Caseworker that paramedics had already examined Child and had determined that Child was alert, breathing normally, had a strong heartbeat, and exhibited no obvious signs of dehydration. Because the examination revealed no concerns, the paramedics did not consider Child in need of further medical attention and returned him to Mother. The paramedics had left by the time Caseworker arrived, so she did not have an opportunity to speak with them.
¶11 The officers warned Caseworker that Father was very upset about her being there and that Father even instructed an officer to stand between him and Caseworker. During the hour-long conversation that ensued, Father refused to allow Caseworker to see Child and instead insisted that Child was “fine.” At one point, Father told Caseworker that he would allow her to see Child if she returned at 8:00 a.m. Caseworker was reluctant to do so because she was aware of a prior case in which Father had fled across state lines with two of his other children, and she worried that Child “would be gone” by 8:00 a.m. if she left. She also found it odd that she had located the family at a motel that was approximately 20 miles from their home.
¶12 Caseworker then requested a warrant for removal of Child. A judge approved the warrant, and Child was taken into DCFS custody in the wee hours of the morning. Caseworker then took Child to an emergency room. There, Child appeared to have gained a little weight, weighing in at 8.05 pounds, although Caseworker suggested the slight weight gain could have also been attributed to a wet diaper. According to the pediatrician (Second Pediatrician) who examined Child later that afternoon when he was brought in by the foster parents with whom Child had been placed, Child “was within the 11th percentile for weight, but his weight to length ratio was in the 3rd percentile,” which was troubling, especially given Child’s higher birth weight. Second Pediatrician stated that although Child was “generally well appearing,” he nonetheless “did appear dehydrated” and underweight. Child’s lab results revealed “abnormalities that were consistent with dehydration and possibly poor feeding,” including abnormal bilirubin levels and elevated liver enzymes (transaminases). Child’s initial lab results also “show[ed] evidence of hemolysis,” which is when the body destroys red blood cells quicker than it can produce them, so the hospital had the labs redone. The second round of labs revealed “normal potassium, but the transaminases still remained mildly elevated.” The lab report also included the following note: “I spoke with [the] pediatric hospitalist, and confirmed that these current findings are not worrisome in this current setting, and they recommended that the patient follow-up with [a] pediatrician in about a week for recheck.”
¶13 Second Pediatrician noted that Child needed to be closely monitored for kernicterus, which he explained “is when bilirubin levels get to a high enough point in the blood that they deposit into the brain, and can cause some brain damage, to use layman’s terms.” Second Pediatrician instructed Child’s foster parents to feed Child formula every “three to four hours” and to return in a couple of days.
¶14 At the follow-up appointment two days later, on April 3, Child had gained approximately 13 ounces,[2] weighing in at 8.88 pounds. At a second follow-up appointment three days later, on April 6, Child weighed 9.44 pounds, meaning he had gained approximately 9 more ounces. A week later, on April 13, Child weighed 10.08 pounds. Child continued to show weight gain in other subsequent exams. Based on this, Second Pediatrician testified that it was his “clinical impression” that Child had not been “receiving appropriate nutrition, and upon receiving appropriate nutrition [Child] returned to an expected weight.” He further explained that “inadequate nutrition can have devastating effects on someone so young” because “dehydration can lead to renal failure, and poor growth can affect development in all areas, physical and mental development.”
¶15 On April 1, the State petitioned for legal custody and guardianship of Child, alleging, in relevant part, neglect by Parents “in that [Child] lacks proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of the parents.” See Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-102(58)(a)(ii) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022).[3] The petition alleged, among other things, the following:
Child “had lost 18% body weight since birth and was at significant risk for seizures and brain damage,” but Parents refused to follow medical advice and supplement Mother’s breast milk with formula.
Parents had provided First Pediatrician’s office with an incorrect address, but with assistance from law enforcement, DCFS eventually located them and Child in a motel approximately 20 miles from their home.
Paramedics examined Child and determined that he “was not in distress,” but because the paramedics left prior to Caseworker’s arrival at the motel, DCFS “was not able to get additional information regarding the failure to thrive medical concerns, particularly a weight measurement.”
Father refused to allow Caseworker to see Child, and he was “hostile” toward her, even going so far as instructing a police officer to stand between them “so that [he] did not harm” her.
Father had several aliases and had “a history of parental kidnapping.”[4]
At the emergency room, it was noted that Child had gained a little weight but also that he had a significant diaper rash.
¶16 The juvenile court held a shelter hearing on April 3, which at Parents’ request was then continued until April 8. Following the continued hearing, the court “found that, based upon the medical records relating to [Child], removal was appropriate.” Specifically, the court found that “[t]he medical records indicate that [Child] was underweight,” that Child’s “lab values continued to show that transaminases still remained mildly elevated, and that the bilirubin is also mildly elevated.” The court was also “concerned about the medical evidence of malnutrition presented by the State.”
¶17 A few weeks later, on April 30, Parents filed an Emergency Motion to Return Custody and Dismiss Petition, in which they argued, among other things, that it was common for infants born from mothers with gestational diabetes to lose more than 10% of their birth weight in their first week. They also emphasized the benefits of breast-feeding and asserted that Child had repeatedly been examined following removal and had been found to be healthy. They also submitted a letter from their latest pediatrician (Third Pediatrician), who had originally been scheduled to see Child on April 2. Although Third Pediatrician had not examined Child, he reviewed Child’s medical records and concluded that “while the concerns of [First Pediatrician] were valid, he failed to convey this concern properly to the parents and their wishes were not taken into consideration” and that the April 1 lab results did not reveal “signs of nutritional deficiency or compromise.”
¶18 Some three weeks later, Parents filed an Order to Show Cause and Motion for Order seeking sanctions against DCFS for violating their right to seek a second medical opinion prior to removal. At a subsequent hearing, the State explained that it never opposed a second medical opinion but that Parents had never properly requested one under the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure or the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Parents withdrew their motion for sanctions and Order to Show Cause and moved for Third Pediatrician to examine Child. At a subsequent hearing, Mother reported that Third Pediatrician had examined Child and concluded “there are no safety concerns in this case.” And in September 2020, the juvenile court placed Child in a trial home placement with Parents.
¶19 Following a multi-day trial in January 2021, the juvenile court found the State had proved the allegations in its petition by clear and convincing evidence and adjudicated Child neglected on the ground that Child lacked “proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of” Parents. The court did not find that Parents abused Child. The court found First Pediatrician’s and Second Pediatrician’s testimonies to be persuasive and stated “that the cursory physical examination by paramedics could not have identified” the “very real and very serious” medical issues that were later identified at the hospital.
¶20 The court next determined that Child’s removal from Parents’ home following the shelter hearing “was appropriate and necessary and in [Child’s] best interest.” But the court also found that the circumstances giving rise to Child’s removal, i.e., Child’s failure to thrive, were “largely resolved” and that Child’s trial home placement with Parents that had begun some six months earlier had “not revealed any child safety concerns.” Accordingly, the court terminated its jurisdiction in the case and returned custody of Child to Parents.
¶21 Parents appeal. Obviously, they do not appeal the decision that Child be returned to them. But they challenge prior rulings of the court.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶22 Parents raise two issues on appeal. First, they argue that “the juvenile court erred as a matter of law by awarding custody of Child to the State at the shelter hearing without giving [them] a reasonable time to obtain a second medical opinion.” But because this issue is moot, as explained in Part I.A. below, we lack judicial power to address it. See Transportation All. Bank v.International Confections Co., 2017 UT 55, ¶ 14, 423 P.3d 1171 (“The mootness doctrine is not a simple matter of judicial convenience or an ascetic act of discretion. It is a constitutional principle limiting our exercise of judicial power under article VIII of the Utah Constitution.”) (quotation simplified); Utah Transit Auth. v. Local 382 of Amalgamated Transit Union, 2012 UT 75, ¶ 12, 289 P.3d 582 (“[B]ecause it is moot, we lack the power to address the underlying merits or issue what would amount to an advisory opinion.”).
¶23 Second, Parents argue that the “court improperly adjudicated Child as neglected.” Specifically, they assert that (a) the court “did not consider the full statutory definition of neglect,” (b) the court’s findings “did not support its ultimate decision that Child was neglected,” and (c) “the neglect adjudication was against the clear weight of the evidence.” “We apply differing standards of review to findings of fact, conclusions of law, and determinations of mixed questions of law and fact.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 14, 496 P.3d 58. “We afford the [juvenile court] no deference on questions of law, reviewing issues de novo, and the most deference on questions of fact, reviewing only for clear error.” In re A.B., 2022 UT 39, ¶ 23, 523 P.3d 168. The level of deference afforded to mixed questions of law and fact, however, depends on whether they are more “law-like” or “fact-like,” with the former being subject to de novo review while the latter are subject to deferential review. See In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 18. A juvenile court’s neglect adjudication falls within the former category because, “[o]nce the facts have been established, the juvenile court is limited to determining whether the statutory criteria for neglect have been met,” which “is primarily a law-like endeavor.” In re A.B., 2022 UT 39, ¶ 28. Accordingly, we review the court’s ultimate adjudication of neglect for correctness.
ANALYSIS
Mootness
¶24 Before we proceed to address the merits of Parents’ arguments, we must first address the contention of the guardian ad litem (the GAL) that this appeal is moot. See Ramos v. Cobblestone Centre, 2020 UT 55, ¶ 22, 472 P.3d 910 (stating that “mootness is a threshold determination” that appellate courts must make before reaching the merits of an appeal). “The defining feature of a moot controversy is the lack of capacity for the court to order a remedy that will have a meaningful impact on the practical positions of the parties.” Utah Transit Auth. v. Local 382 of Amalgamated Transit Union, 2012 UT 75, ¶ 24, 289 P.3d 582. “When a case is moot in this sense, the parties’ interest in its resolution is purely academic.” Id. See Transportation All. Bank v. International Confections Co., 2017 UT 55, ¶ 15, 423 P.3d 1171 (“A case may be mooted on appeal if the relief requested is rendered impossible or of no legal effect.”) (quotation simplified).
¶25 The GAL argues that both issues Parents raise on appeal are moot. We agree that Parents’ argument related to Child’s removal following the shelter hearing is moot and does not satisfy a mootness exception, and we therefore do not reach the merits of that argument. But because we conclude Parents’ arguments related to the juvenile court’s adjudication that Child was neglected satisfies the collateral consequences exception to mootness, we address the merits of those arguments in Part II.
Child’s Removal
¶26 The GAL argues that Parents’ challenge to Child’s removal from their care following the shelter hearing is moot because “they now enjoy full custody of Child.” Although Parents concede that “appellate review would not affect the rights of the parties because the shelter hearing ruling was an interim ruling that is no longer operative,” thereby rendering the issue technically moot, they nonetheless assert that “the issue qualifies under the exception to the mootness doctrine.”
¶27 Under the mootness exception, “we will decide a moot issue when a litigant can demonstrate that the issue will (1) affect the public interest, (2) be likely to recur, and (3) because of the brief time that any one litigant is affected, be likely to evade review.” Widdison v. State, 2021 UT 12, ¶ 14, 489 P.3d 158 (quotation simplified). Even assuming, without deciding, that the first and third elements are met, Parents have not carried their burden of persuasion on the second element. Accordingly, this issue does not satisfy the mootness exception.
¶28 Under the second element, “[a] party must convince us that the issue will arise again.” Id. ¶ 17. “Under settled case law, a mere physical or theoretical possibility of recurrence is insufficient” to satisfy this element. Id. (quotation simplified). Rather, “there must be a reasonable expectation or a demonstrated probability that the same controversy will recur.” Utah Transit Auth., 2012 UT 75, ¶ 36 (quotation simplified).
¶29 Parents’ argument on this element is limited to the assertion that at shelter hearings, “whenever the basis for removal is an allegation of medical neglect, the issue will again arise as to whether the juvenile court can remove the child without permitting the parents reasonable time to seek a second medical opinion.” But Parents’ argument is more intricate than the mere question of whether they were entitled to seek a second medical opinion prior to Child’s removal from their care. Indeed, Utah law is clear that parents facing removal of their child for medical neglect are generally entitled to a reasonable time to obtain such an opinion. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-304(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022) (“In cases of alleged medical neglect where [DCFS] seeks protective custody, temporary custody, or custody of the child based on the report or testimony of a physician, a parent or guardian shall have a reasonable amount of time, as determined by the juvenile court, to obtain a second medical opinion from another physician of the parent’s or guardian’s choosing who has expertise in the applicable field.”). See also id. § 80-3-304(3) (“If the second medical opinion results in a different diagnosis or treatment recommendation from that of the opinion of the physician [DCFS] used, the juvenile court shall give deference to the second medical opinion as long as that opinion is reasonable and informed and is consistent with treatment that is regularly prescribed by medical experts in the applicable field.”). What Parents’ argument on this issue boils down to, however, is whether, under the facts of this case, Child was facing “an imminent risk of death or a deteriorating condition of [his] health,” see id. § 80-3-304(2),[5] or “an immediate threat of death or serious and irreparable harm,” see id. § 80-3-304(4),[6] thereby depriving Parents of what would otherwise be their statutory right to seek a second medical opinion prior to Child’s removal, see id. § 80-3-304(1)–(2).
¶30 Because Parents’ argument on the “likely to recur” element of the mootness exception does not directly address the intricacies of the issue they raise on appeal, they have not carried their burden of persuasion on this element. See Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56, ¶ 9, 194 P.3d 903. Accordingly, this issue is not exempted from the mootness doctrine, and we lack judicial power to address it further.
Neglect Adjudication
¶31 The GAL next asserts that because the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and returned Child to Parents’ custody, Child no longer has the status of “neglected” and Parents’ challenge to the juvenile court’s neglect adjudication is therefore moot. Parents and the State oppose this suggestion of mootness. Specifically, although the State agrees that “this appeal may be technically moot because the child has been returned to the Parents and court jurisdiction terminated,” it concedes that the issue satisfies the collateral consequences exception to mootness. This argument is likewise adopted by Parents in their reply brief.[7]
¶32 “Generally, once mootness has been demonstrated, the party seeking to survive dismissal bears the burden of demonstrating that collateral legal consequences will flow from the challenged issue.” In re J.S., 2017 UT App 5, ¶ 11, 391 P.3d 358 (quotation simplified). Our approach to applying the collateral consequences exception differs depending on whether the collateral consequences are presumed or not. “When collateral legal consequences are presumed, the case isn’t moot unless it can be shown that no adverse collateral consequences will result.” State v. Legg, 2018 UT 12, ¶ 14, 417 P.3d 592 (quotation simplified). Conversely, “[w]hen collateral legal consequences aren’t presumed, a case is moot unless the party opposing mootness can establish actual collateral legal consequences.” Id. We conclude that Parents’ argument satisfies the former of these two approaches.
¶33 While “we presume collateral legal consequences follow criminal convictions,” id. ¶ 17, the presumption may arise in other contexts when the collateral consequences are “sufficient to mandate the same undeniable conclusion as criminal convictions, i.e., the existence of a collateral legal consequence is virtuallyinescapable,”[8] id. ¶ 18. See id. (“We will only presume collateral legal consequences when the challenged action carries extensive collateral consequences imposed by law.”); id. ¶ 24 (“Presumed collateral legal consequences aren’t inherently limited to the realm of criminal convictions.”). This presumption “does not come lightly.” Id. ¶ 18. Indeed, the presumption in the criminal conviction context exists only because “the law mandates numerous legal consequences follow a criminal conviction to such an extent that the existence of at least one collateral legal consequence for an individual defendant is effectively inevitable.”[9] Id. ¶ 17. Thus, in the non-conviction context, the presumption likewise requires a demonstration of “numerous consequences imposed by law that would command the conclusion that some collateral legal consequence is inevitable for every” similarly situated party. Id. ¶ 32. Such consequences must be “statutorily mandated and cannot be avoided by conforming with the law.” Id. ¶ 31. See id. ¶¶ 29–30.
¶34 Parents and the State both argue that the juvenile court’s“finding of neglect remains significant and important notwithstanding the fact that the juvenile court has nowterminated jurisdiction over this family.” Specifically, they assert that “a finding of neglect does provide a statutory basis for termination of parental rights were Parents to again find themselves before the juvenile court.” See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(1)(b) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022) (listing “that the parent has neglected or abused the child” as a legal ground for which a parent’s rights may be terminated); In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶¶ 28–30 & n.3, 463 P.3d 66 (stating that a prior adjudication of abuse or neglect, regardless of whether the “parent has improved herself since,” satisfies the statutory ground for parental termination, leaving the juvenile court to decide only whether termination is in the best interest of the child). The State additionally asserts that the neglect adjudication “precludes Parents from challenging their substantiated finding of neglect on the DCFS Management Information System child abuse database,” see Utah Code Ann. § 80-2-707(7)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022) (“[A]n alleged perpetrator may not make a request . . . to challenge a supported finding if a court of competent jurisdiction entered a finding, in a proceeding in which the alleged perpetrator was a party, that the alleged perpetrator is substantially responsible for the abuse, neglect, or dependency that is the subject of the supported finding.”), which will have “implications for any future investigations of child abuse/neglect regarding the Parents, as well as affect[] things such as the Parents’ ability to serve as foster parents in the future.” We agree and conclude that this satisfies the presumed collateral consequences approach.
¶35 In State v. Legg, 2018 UT 12, 417 P.3d 592, our Supreme Court held that revocation of probation did not warrant presumed collateral consequences (or amount to actual collateral consequences, for that matter). See id. ¶¶ 25, 32, 38. The appellant in that case argued that probation revocation could be used as a “prior history in future contact with the legal system,” could be used “as an aggravating factor in the sentencing recommendation matrix,” could be a basis for the State to refuse “plea offers or offers of probation,” and would render him ineligible “for a reduction of the degree of his or her first offense under Utah Code section 76-3-402.” Id. ¶ 28 (quotation simplified). The Court rejected these arguments, holding that the first three arguments simply amounted to the allegation that “certain non-statutory consequences may occur,” and that “these types of discretionary decisions are not governed by the mere presence or absence of a recorded violation of probation.” Id. ¶ 29 (quotation simplified). Additionally, the Court stated that “the first three potential collateral legal consequences are contingent upon [the appellant] again violating state law,” and that he is “able—and indeed required by law—to prevent such a possibility from occurring.” Id. ¶ 30 (quotation simplified). And concerning the fourth argument regarding “the potential of a 402 reduction,” the Court stated that because it was discretionary, the reduction was “at most, highly speculative and nothing more than a mere possibility.” Id. ¶ 31.
¶36 Our Supreme Court also distinguished its prior opinion in In re Giles, 657 P.2d 285 (Utah 1982), in which it “concluded that an appeal of a civil commitment was not moot because there were ‘collateral consequences that may be imposed upon appellant that might arise were he to face future confrontations with the legal system,’” Legg, 2018 UT 12, ¶ 29 n.4 (quoting In re Giles, 657 P.2d at 287) (quotation otherwise simplified). The Court stated that individuals subject to civil commitments “face similar deprivations of liberty as criminals” and that “unlike the use of previous commitment in future commitment hearings, a defendant is able to completely avoid the use of a probation revocation in a future sentencing decision by not committing a future violation of law.”[10] Id. (quotation simplified). Adjudications of neglect by a juvenile court are on much the same footing.
¶37 As an initial matter, “[a] parent’s right to raise his or her child is one of the most precious rights any person enjoys, and is among the fundamental rights clearly protected by our federal and state constitutions.” In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 9, 436 P.3d 206, aff’d, 2020 UT 60, 472 P.3d 827. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022) (“Under both the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state, a parent possesses a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of the parent’s child. For this reason, the termination of family ties by the state may only be done for compelling reasons.”). Accordingly, although taking a different form than that in the criminal-conviction context, parents nonetheless face “deprivations of liberty” as a result of neglect adjudications, which include collateral consequences in possible “future confrontations with the legal system.” See Legg, 2018 UT 12, ¶ 29 n.4 (quotation simplified).
¶38 Unlike the arguments made by the appellant in Legg, the consequences that Parents would be subject to as a result of the neglect adjudication are imposed by law and are not discretionary. Under Utah law, the prior adjudication of neglect is a sufficient ground for termination of parental rights. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(1)(b); In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶¶ 28–30. Although it would satisfy only one of the two elements required for termination of parental rights,[11] see Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301, that first element plays a critical role in the protection of parental rights, see In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 14 (“Termination of parental rights solely on the basis of the child’s best interest and without any finding of parental unfitness, abandonment, or substantial neglect, violates the parent’s constitutional liberty rights.”) (quotation simplified). Additionally, a finding of neglect carries various consequences because the adjudication remains on the DCFS Management Information System child abuse database. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-2-707(7)(a). As the State explains, this will at the very least preclude Parents from acting as foster parents and will affect any possible future investigations conducted by DCFS.
¶39 Finally, unlike in Legg where the appellant’s arguments were contingent on the appellant again violating the law, see 2018 UT 12, ¶ 30, such is not the case here. Under the parental rights termination test, based on the prior adjudication of neglect, a parent’s rights could conceivably be terminated without the parent subsequently satisfying a statutory ground for termination, so long as termination is in the child’s best interest. See In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶¶ 28–30 & n.3.
¶40 For these reasons, we hold that Parents’ challenge to the juvenile court’s neglect adjudication satisfies the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine. We accordingly proceed to address the merits of their argument, even though the issue is technically moot.
Merits of the Neglect Adjudication
¶41 In challenging the juvenile court’s adjudication of Child as neglected, Parents argue that the court committed a threshold legal error when it “failed to conduct the requisite legal analysis into whether Parents’ conduct involved a reasonable and informed health care decision.” We agree with Parents in this regard.
¶42 The juvenile court adjudicated Child neglected on the ground that Child lacked “proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of” Parents. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-102(58)(a)(ii) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). But the Utah Code specifically exempts from its definition of neglect “a health care decision made for a child by the child’s parent or guardian, unless the state or other party to a proceeding shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the health care decision is not reasonable and informed.” Id. § 80-1-102(58)(b)(ii).[12]
¶43 In determining whether a parent acted reasonably regarding a child’s healthcare, “the pivotal question is what action by the parent was proper under the circumstances.” In re N.K.C., 1999 UT App 345, ¶ 15, 995 P.2d 1.[13] This standard “is flexible and depends on the actual circumstances involved,” id. ¶ 17, “includes a full range of conduct on the part of parents and guardians,” and “does not require extraordinary caution or exceptional skill,” id. ¶ 19 (quotation simplified). See id. ¶ 18 (“[P]erfection is not required[.]”). Rather, “similar to a reasonableness standard in torts,” “reasonable care is what an ordinary, prudent parent uses in similar situations.” Id. ¶ 19 (quotation simplified). Additionally, although this “standard may accommodate the cautious and the hesitant, . . . it cannot accommodate inaction in the face of an obvious cause for immediate concern.” Id. ¶ 21. See id. ¶ 16 (“[W]aiting even an hour when a child is suffering from an obvious and serious injury is ordinarily not reasonable and could support a determination of medical neglect.”).
¶44 In addition to being reasonable, the parent’s health care decisions must be “informed.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-102(58)(b) (ii). “Informed” is defined as “having information” or “based on possession of information.” Informed, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com /dictionary/infor med [https://perma.cc/S8NV-S8X7]. See Informed, Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/informed [https://perma.cc/ TN64-KHLB] (defining “informed” as “having or [being] prepared with information or knowledge; apprised”). Thus, parents must take the time to apprise themselves of the necessary information to allow them to make a considered health care decision for their child. Indeed, in cases of alleged medical neglect, absent “an immediate threat of death or serious and irreparable harm” to the child, if a parent obtains a second medical opinion that “results in a different diagnosis or treatment recommendation from that of the opinion of the physician [that DCFS] used,” that opinion is entitled to deference “as long as that opinion is reasonable and informed and is consistent with treatment that is regularly prescribed by medical experts in the applicable field.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-304(3)–(4) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022).
¶45 Here, at the adjudication hearing, the State argued that Parents’ actions “were not reasonable and informed under the circumstance” because they failed to appear for follow-up appointments to check Child’s weight and conduct additional lab tests. Parents countered, asserting that they “have a strong conviction against formula” and that based on the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation, they believed that exclusively breast-feeding “is the healthiest way to provide for your child.” Indeed, the materials First Pediatrician gave Parents following the March 26, 2020 appointment state, “Breast milk is the best food for your baby.” Parents further asserted that they did follow medical advice by “treating the bilirubin levels with the light therapy,” treating Child’s diaper rash by administering prescribed medication, and treating Child’s weight loss by increasing the frequency of feedings and by making an appointment to see Third Pediatrician on April 2. Parents pointed to the fact that increased feedings (albeit with formula) were what Second Pediatrician instructed Child’s foster parents to do following his examination of Child. Accordingly, they asserted that although they “disagreed with” First Pediatrician concerning the use of formula, they “did not disregard” his medical recommendation to increase the frequency of Child’s feedings.
¶46 In finding Child was neglected by Parents, the juvenile court did not discuss whether the State had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Parents’ medical decisions for Child were not “reasonable and informed.” Instead, the court found that the State had proven the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:
By March 30, 2020, Child “had lost 18% body weight since birth and was at significant risk for seizures and brain damage.”
Paramedics who examined Child at the motel concluded that Child “was not in distress,” but this “cursory physical examination . . . could not have identified” the “very real and very serious” medical issues that were later identified at the hospital.
First Pediatrician “was very concerned about dehydration of” Child.
Parents “were advised by [First Pediatrician] of the very serious medical danger to [Child] and advised [Parents] to supplement the baby’s intake with formula.”
Parents “refused to follow the medical advice and bring the baby in for weight checks, lab draws, and treatment recommendations regarding [Mother’s] breastmilk supply, or follow the other medical advice given to” them.
When taken to the emergency room by DCFS, Child’s “weight had increased from the last time he was seen by” First Pediatrician.
The court also made findings regarding the difficulty Caseworker experienced in locating Child, Father’s aggressive and belligerent attitude toward Caseworker, Father’s use of aliases and “history of parental interference,” and Father’s “very strong, passionate feelings about Government interference or involvement in the lives of private citizens.”[14]
¶47 But despite the GAL’s assertions to the contrary, these facts, without more, are insufficient to establish that Parents’ medical decisions for Child were unreasonable, i.e., that Parents did not “exhibit appropriate concern for the infant’s needs given the observable evidence,” In re N.K.C., 1999 UT App 345, ¶ 20 (quotation simplified), and whether their decisions were informed. Specifically, the court’s findings do not go to the reasonableness of Parents’ decision to increase feeding frequency without supplementing with formula in response to Child’s more-than-expected weight loss, whether Parents’ decision to forgo feeding Child formula under the circumstances was informed, or the reasonableness of Parents’ decision to wait until April 2 to have Child re-examined following the March 26 appointment with First Pediatrician in lieu of the follow-up appointment scheduled for the following day.
¶48 More importantly, even if the juvenile court did make the relevant findings, it did not undertake the necessary analysis of whether Parents’ medical decisions were reasonable, which is an ultimate determination that is left to the juvenile court—not an appellate court. Reasonableness determinations involve the application of law to facts, some of which, depending on the context, are entitled to deferential review and others of which are subject to de novo review. See Sawyer v. Department of Workforce Services, 2015 UT 33, ¶ 20, 345 P.3d 1253 (“[S]ome determinations of reasonableness should be reviewed de novo and others should not.”). The reasonable parent standard is “similar to a reasonableness standard in torts,” In re N.K.C., 1999 UT App 345, ¶ 19, which “is determined by the fact-finder and subject only to deferential review,” Sawyer, 2015 UT 33, ¶ 21. This is because “the particular facts and circumstances of the [parent’s] conduct are likely to be so complex and varying that no rule adequately addressing the relevance of all these facts can be spelled out.” In re adoption of Baby B., 2012 UT 35, ¶ 43, 308 P.3d 382 (quotation simplified). Additionally, a juvenile court’s determination under the reasonable parent standard “would often be affected by [the court’s] observation of a competing witness’s appearance and demeanor on matters that cannot be adequately reflected in the record available to the appellate courts.” Id. (quotation simplified). Accordingly, absent the court’s analysis of whether Parents’ medical decisions satisfied the reasonable parent standard, the juvenile court’s adjudication of neglect in this case is unsustainable, and this court cannot undertake the analysis in the juvenile court’s stead even if it had made the requisite factual findings.
¶49 The State argues that Parents’ conduct was objectively unreasonable and the fact that Child did not suffer permanent harm is not determinative. We certainly agree with the latter portion of this argument, that is, “[a] parent should not benefit from the happenstance that her child’s condition did not worsen” as a result of her unreasonable medical decision. In re N.K.C., 1999 UT App 345, ¶ 14. But for a healthcare decision to be objectively unreasonable, as was the case in In re N.K.C.,[15] the court needed to find that Child’s condition presented “an obvious cause for immediate concern.” Id. ¶ 21 (emphasis added). Although the juvenile court did find that Child’s examination at the hospital revealed “very real and very serious” medical issues, the court did not make a finding regarding whether they were issues that should have been obvious to Parents. To the contrary, the court acknowledged that the examination completed by responding paramedics earlier that night at the motel revealed that Child “was not in distress.” See id. ¶ 20 (stating that a parent is not expected “to make a diagnosis, only to exhibit appropriate concern for the infant’s needs given the observable evidence”) (emphasis added) (quotation otherwise simplified). Thus, Parents’ conduct at the time could not have been objectively unreasonable.
¶50 In sum, because the underlying conduct that should have been the focus of the juvenile court’s neglect adjudication was Parents’ medical decisions regarding Child, the court could not find neglect unless the State had met its burden of proving that those decisions were not “reasonable and informed.” See Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-102(58)(b)(ii) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). Because the court did not conduct the requisite analysis, its ruling contained legal errors, and we therefore reverse.
CONCLUSION
¶51 Because Parents’ argument regarding Child’s removal from their care following the shelter hearing is moot and not subject to a recognized exception to the mootness doctrine, we lack judicial power to address it. But we have power to address Parents’ challenge to the juvenile court’s neglect adjudication because that argument, while technically moot, satisfies the collateral consequences exception to mootness. And because the juvenile court did not make findings or conduct an analysis related to whether Parents’ medical decisions for Child were “reasonable and informed,” the court’s ruling contained critical legal errors, and we therefore reverse the court’s neglect adjudication.
[1] “We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the juvenile court findings.” In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, n.1, 463 P.3d 66 (quotation simplified).
[2] Second Pediatrician testified that Child had gained around 6 ounces by the April 3 appointment, but medical records show that Child’s weight increased from 3.65 kg to 4.03 kg in the two-day interval, for a total weight gain of 0.38 kg, which is 13.40 ounces.
[3] At the time, the relevant provision appeared in section 78A-6-105 of the Utah Code. The provision has since, without any substantial change, been moved to section 80-1-102. Compare Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-105(36)(a)(ii) (LexisNexis Supp. 2018), with id. § 80-1-102(58)(a)(ii) (Supp. 2022). We cite the current version of the annotated code for convenience.
[4] Specifically, the petition alleged that he took his then two- and four-year-old children out of state during his weekend parent-time and disappeared for eight months. Father and the children were finally located in Pennsylvania where they were observed outside in the winter cold, without coats. The petition further alleged that Father first refused to give responding police officers his name and eventually gave an alias. Once his true identity was discovered, Father was arrested, and the children were returned to their mother in Utah.
[5] The subsection, in its entirety, states,
Unless there is an imminent risk of death or a deteriorating condition of the child’s health, the child shall remain in the custody of the parent or guardian while the parent or guardian obtains a second medical opinion.
Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-304(2) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022).
[6] The subsection, in its entirety, states,
Subsections (1) through (3) do not apply to emergency treatment or care when the child faces an immediate threat of death or serious and irreparable harm and when there is insufficient time to safely allow the parent or guardian to provide alternative necessary care and treatment of the parent’s or guardian’s choosing.
Id. § 80-3-304(4).
[7] But unlike the State, Parents do not concede that the current appeal is technically moot. Rather, they argue that the appeal is not moot because the juvenile court’s neglect adjudication affects their parental rights. They support their assertion by adopting the State’s collateral consequences argument. That is, Parents do not assert that our resolution of this issue in their favor would have any current or practicable effect on their parental rights. Instead, they base their argument on a potential future event, asserting that their rights are affected because, as discussed in greater detail later in this opinion, “a neglect adjudication remains a statutory basis for terminating Parents’ rights going forward.” See In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶¶ 28–30, 463 P.3d 66 (“Once neglect has occurred, a juvenile court is entirely justified in making a finding that a parent ‘has neglected’ a child, even if that parent has improved herself since.”). But we are unpersuaded that even if Parents’ argument proves meritorious, any remedy we could order would “have a meaningful impact on the practical positions of the parties.” Utah Transit Auth. v. Local 382 of Amalgamated Transit Union, 2012 UT 75, ¶ 24, 289 P.3d 582. See State v. Legg, 2018 UT 12, ¶ 26, 417 P.3d 592 (“The question of mootness doesn’t turn on which collateral legal consequences the defendant will suffer, but on whether the requested judicial relief can affect the rights of the litigants.”) (quotation simplified).
[8] An example of a non-criminal context in which the collateral consequences presumption applies is that of civil commitments because “patients of mental hospitals face similar deprivations of liberty as criminals.” State v. Legg, 2018 UT 12, ¶ 29 n.4, 417 P.3d 592 (quotation simplified). See In re Giles, 657 P.2d 285, 286–87 (Utah 1982).
[9]Our Supreme Court has “recognized several collateral legal consequences that may result from a criminal conviction, such as the use of the conviction to impeach the petitioner’s character or as a factor in determining a sentence in a future trial, as well as the petitioner’s inability to vote, engage in certain businesses, or serve on a jury.” State v. Legg, 2018 UT 12, ¶ 22, 417 P.3d 592 (quotation simplified).
[10] Our Supreme Court also noted that, at the time, “being labeled ‘mentally incompetent’ carried collateral legal consequences comparable to criminal convictions,” such as restrictions on voting rights and the ability to serve on a jury, obtain a driver license, or obtain a firearm license. See Legg, 2018 UT 12, ¶ 29 n.4.
[11] Parental rights may be terminated only if the following two elements are met: (1) “a trial court must find that one or more of the statutory grounds for termination are present” and (2) “a trial court must find that termination of the parent’s rights is in the best interests of the child.” In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 13, 436 P.3d 206 (quotation simplified), aff’d, 2020 UT 60, 472 P.3d 827.
[12] The Utah Code further exempts from its definition of neglect a parent’s exercise of his or her right to seek a second medical opinion when DCFS seeks to remove the child from the parent’s custody on allegations of medical neglect. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-102(58)(b)(iii) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). See also id. § 80-3-304 (stating that, with certain limitations, parents have a right to seek a second medical opinion in cases of alleged medical neglect). Parents also argue that the juvenile court erred in failing to consider this provision as part of its adjudication ruling. Because we reverse on the ground that the court did not consider whether Parents’ medical decisions were “reasonable and informed,” we do not reach this question.
[13] In re N.K.C., 1999 UT App 345, 995 P.2d 1, addressed the reasonable parent standard under the medical neglect statute then in effect, which required this court to determine whether a parent provided a child with “proper or necessary” medical care. See id. ¶ 8. The statute has since been rephrased and renumbered, without any substantive change that is relevant to the current appeal. Compare Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-102(58)(a)(iii) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022) (defining “neglect” as “failure or refusal of a parent, guardian, or custodian to provide proper or necessary subsistence or medical care, or any other care necessary for the child’s health, safety, morals, or well-being”), with id. § 78-3a-103(1)(r)(i)(C) (Supp. 1999) (defining “neglected child” as “a minor . . . whose parent, guardian, or custodian fails or refuses to provide proper or necessary subsistence, education, or medical care, including surgery or psychiatric services when required, or any other care necessary for health, safety, morals, or well-being”). Although the juvenile court in the case before us did not adjudicate Child neglected under the medical neglect statute, it nevertheless was barred from finding neglect if the underlying conduct constituted a “reasonable and informed” healthcare decision. See id. § 80-1-102(58)(b)(ii) (Supp. 2022) (“‘Neglect’ does not include . . . a health care decision made for a child by the child’s parent or guardian, unless the state or other party to a proceeding shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the health care decision is not reasonable and informed[.]”). Additionally, we see no reason why the reasonable parent standard that is applied to a determination of whether a parent provided “proper or necessary” medical care under the medical neglect statute should differ from the standard applied in determining whether a parent made a “reasonable” healthcare decision under the statute at issue in this case.
[14] The GAL makes much of Father’s contentious behavior, his history of parental interference, and the difficulty Caseworker experienced in locating Parents and Child. There is no question that these behaviors were not constructive and were not helpful to Parents’ cause. But these findings of fact do not go to the reasonableness of Parents’ medical decisions and are therefore largely irrelevant to the determination of whether their medical decisions were reasonable and informed.
[15] In In re N.K.C., 1999 UT App 345, 995 P.2d 1, the father “vigorously shook” his one-month-old child. Id. ¶ 2. The child’s mother, who had been absent during the abuse, later “observed that the child was limp and lethargic” and that his “pupils were fixed.” Id. Instead of seeking immediate medical attention, the mother put the child to bed. Id. Later that night, after the child’s condition had not improved, the mother contacted the child’s pediatrician, who directed her to immediately take the child to the emergency room. Id. ¶ 3. The mother arrived with the child at the emergency room almost five hours after she initially discovered the child’s serious condition. Id. The juvenile court determined that the mother “neglected the child by failing to obtain timely medical care.” Id. ¶ 6 (quotation simplified). We affirmed, stating that under the reasonable-parent standard, the mother’s conduct, in light of the severe symptoms the child was exhibiting, was “well outside that which can reasonably be expected of a parent in that situation,” and therefore “the mother’s failure to summon immediate medical attention amounted to a failure to exercise the minimum degree of care expected of a reasonably prudent parent.” Id. ¶ 21.
Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Monica Diaz
No. 1205462
Julie J. Nelson Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson,
Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME,
MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, and AMY J. OLIVER.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 L.C.G. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights. We affirm.
¶2 “To terminate parental rights, a juvenile court must make two separate findings.” In re C.T., 2018 UT App 233, ¶ 12, 438 P.3d 100 (quotation simplified). First, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that there is at least one statutory ground for termination.” Id. (quotation simplified). “Second, “a court must find that termination of the parent’s rights is in the best interest of the child.” Id. Because a parent’s rights are constitutionally protected, a court may terminate parental rights only if it finds that termination is strictly necessary for the best interest of a child. See id.
¶3 Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that there were statutory grounds supporting the termination of her parental rights, or the court’s determination that doing so was strictly necessary and in F.C.G.’s (Child) best interest. However, the record supports the juvenile court’s determination that there were statutory grounds supporting the termination of Mother’s parental rights, that termination was strictly necessary, and that terminating Mother’s rights was in Child’s best interest.
¶4 Instead, Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred by determining that she waived her right to counsel, and by permitting counsel to withdraw at trial. Specifically, Mother asserts that the juvenile court violated rule 53(c) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure and her due process rights by permitting counsel’s withdrawal. “We review waiver of a statutory right to counsel for correctness but grant the trial court a reasonable measure of discretion when applying the law to the facts.” In re A.B., 2017 UT App 99, ¶ 5, 400 P.3d 1107 (quotation simplified). The “termination of parental rights involves a statutory right to counsel, not a constitutional right to counsel. See id. Accordingly, “waiver of a statutory right to counsel is proper as long as the record as a whole reflects the parent’s reasonable understanding of the proceedings and awareness of the right to counsel.” Id. (quotation simplified).
¶5 Rule 53(c) provides that a motion to withdraw may be made orally before the court, and counsel’s request to withdraw should demonstrate a parent’s familiarity with his or her right to counsel, the withdrawal of counsel, the right to appeal, and post-judgment motions. Utah R. Juv. P. 53(c)(1). The record demonstrates that Mother was aware of the rights identified in rule 53(c). On November 30, 2021, the juvenile court appointed counsel for Mother. Based on Mother’s lack of contact with counsel, and her failure to meaningfully participate in the proceeding, the court permitted counsel to withdraw.
¶6 On October 13, 2022, Mother appeared at the termination trial. Knowing that counsel had been permitted to withdraw, Mother once again requested the appointment of counsel. The juvenile court re-appointed Mother’s counsel and continued the trial until December 12, 2022, so that Mother could participate in trial preparations and trial. The court scheduled a pretrial hearing for November 7, 2022. Mother failed to appear at the pretrial hearing. Mother also failed to appear at the December 12, 2022 trial.
¶7 The court determined that Mother received notice of both the pretrial hearing and the continued trial when she appeared on October 13, 2022. Mother failed to communicate with counsel and assist in trial preparations. Mother’s counsel attempted to contact Mother at least twelve times prior to the continued trial. Mother’s counsel received only one email from Mother, but it was not substantive, and it did not address any of counsel’s “questions or advice or anything that I had given to her.” The court determined that based on Mother’s nonappearances in court, plus her lack of contact with counsel, Mother waived her right to counsel.
¶8 Mother next argues that the court violated her due process rights. Specifically, she argues that she had a constitutional right to counsel, beyond that of a statutory right to counsel. Mother asserts that “the Utah Supreme Court determined that, under certain factual circumstances, a parent facing termination of their parental rights has a right to counsel under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution.” In re adoption of K.A.S., 2016 UT 55, ¶ 35, 390 P.3d 278. Mother argues that a constitutional right to counsel requires a heightened showing that a parent knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to counsel, rather than whether the “record as a whole reflects the parent’s reasonable understanding of the proceedings and awareness of the right to counsel.” In re A.B., 2017 UT App 99, ¶ 5.
¶9 Mother acknowledges that the Supreme Court did not hold that parents are always entitled to the constitutional right to counsel. The Supreme Court determined that “where, for example, the parent has not taken an interest in the proceedings and the weight of the evidence of the parent’s lack of interest is great—the presumption against the right to counsel will not be overcome.” In re adoption of K.A.S., 2016 UT 55, ¶ 38 (quotation simplified). Given the juvenile court’s determinations regarding Mother’s nonappearances in court, her lack of contact with counsel, and her lack of participation, the record supports the juvenile court’s determination that Mother did not take an interest in the proceedings, and the weight of the evidence of Mother’s lack of interest is great. The record does not support that Mother had a constitutional right to counsel, or that the court erred in its waiver determination and allowing counsel to withdraw.
¶10 Mother next asserts that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel withdrew, rather than requesting another trial continuance or additional appointment of counsel. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Appellant must show: (1) her counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 669, 687 (1984); In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, ¶ 19, 473 P.3d 184 (applying Strickland to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a child welfare proceeding). To demonstrate deficient performance, Mother must persuade this court that, considering the record as a whole, counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable. State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 36, 462 P.3d 350. To demonstrate prejudice, Mother must show that “there exists a reasonable probability that the case would have had a different outcome had trial counsel not performed deficiently.” State v. Florez, 2020 UT App 76, ¶ 43, 465 P.3d 307.
¶11 Mother asserts that counsel was deficient because he did not adequately comply with rule 53(c) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure. However, as addressed above, it was apparent from the record that Mother was familiar with her rights identified in rule 53(c). See Utah R. Juv. P. 53(c)(1)(iii). Counsel had been appointed twice in Mother’s proceeding, and the court permitted counsel’s withdrawal due to Mother’s refusal to communicate with counsel, participate, and to attend court. Counsel’s decision to withdraw, rather than request yet another continuance or additional counsel was not deficient. “Because the decision not to pursue a futile motion is almost always a sound trial strategy, counsel’s failure to make a motion that would be futile if raised does not constitute deficient performance.” State v. Powell, 2020 UT App 63, ¶ 20, 463 P.3d 705. Given the required short time frames in child welfare cases, Mother’s nonappearances, lack of communication with counsel, and her lack of participation, the record does not support Mother’s claim that counsel was ineffective for declining to request yet another continuance or requesting that the court appoint another attorney.
¶12 Mother next argues that the doctrine of structural prejudice suggests that she was prejudiced when counsel withdrew at trial. See State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88, ¶ 40, 361 P.3d 104. To satisfy this part of Strickland’s test, Mother must demonstrate particularized prejudice in her specific case. See State v. Juarez, 2021 UT App 53, ¶ 27, 489 P.3d 231. “Allegations of structural prejudice, or prejudice per se, are generally insufficient in the context of an ineffective assistance claim.” Id. (quotation simplified). However, we need not address both components of the Strickland inquiry if we determine that Mother made an insufficient showing on either prong. See id. ¶ 26. Because the record does not support Mother’s claim that counsel was deficient, we need not address this claim. See id.
¶13 The juvenile court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights is affirmed.
STATE of Utah, IN the INTEREST OF B.W., J.W., and N.W., persons under eighteen years of age.
H.W., Appellant,
v.
State of Utah, Appellee.
No. 20210886-CA
Filed November 17, 2022
Eighth District Juvenile Court, Duchesne Department, The Honorable Jeffry Ross, No. 1182864
Attorneys and Law Firms
Emily Adams and Sara Pfrommer, Park City, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian ad Litem
Judge Ryan D. Tenney authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and Ryan M. Harris concurred.
Opinion
TENNEY, Judge:
¶1 In December 2019, H.W. (Mother) gave birth to twins, J.W. and N.W. (collectively, the Twins). At the hospital, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine, as did the Twins’ umbilical cords. The Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) soon began providing protective supervision services to Mother, the Twins, and B.W., Mother’s one-year-old son. After Mother repeatedly failed drug tests, the juvenile court placed B.W., J.W., and N.W. (collectively, the Children) in DCFS custody.
¶2 Mother continued to struggle with illegal drug use, and the court terminated reunification services in May 2021. Mother was then treated in an inpatient treatment facility from May through August 2021. After leaving this treatment facility, Mother again relapsed, using methamphetamine several times in the ensuing weeks. At the close of a termination hearing in November 2021, the court terminated Mother’s parental rights in the Children.
¶3 Mother now appeals the termination decision, arguing that there was not clear and convincing evidence (1) that any ground for termination existed or (2) to support the court’s best interest determination. As set forth below, however, there was enough evidence on both fronts. We accordingly affirm the challenged rulings.
BACKGROUND
DCFS Petitions for Protective Supervision
¶4 In December 2019, when B.W. was one year old, Mother gave birth to the Twins. At the time of their birth, Mother tested positive for “methamphetamine and amphetamines.” The Twins’ umbilical cords also tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines. Mother claimed that “she didn’t know why or how she could have tested positive unless it was her e-cigarette.”1
¶5 Based on the positive drug tests, DCFS filed a verified petition for protective supervision services a few weeks after the Twins’ births. In that petition, DCFS alleged that the Children were abused and neglected based on the Twins’ fetal exposure to illegal drugs.
¶6 Mother responded pursuant to rule 34(e) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure, meaning that she neither admitted nor denied the allegations but accepted that the allegations would “be deemed true.” See Utah R. Juv. P. 34(e). Based on Mother’s rule 34(e) response, the juvenile court found that the Twins had been exposed to illegal drugs and that all the Children were abused and neglected by Mother. The juvenile court accordingly ordered DCFS “to provide protective supervision services to the family” and to develop a child and family plan.
¶7 With Mother’s input, DCFS then created a child and family plan. The plan listed several responsibilities for Mother, such as maintaining a residence appropriate for the Children, completing a mental health and substance abuse assessment, submitting to random drug testing, and making daily calls to the Treatment Assessment Screening Center (TASC) system.
¶8 The court held a disposition hearing less than one month after it adjudicated the Children as abused and neglected. At that hearing, DCFS reported that Mother had not been calling into the TASC system or completing drug tests. The guardian ad litem moved for the Children to be taken into DCFS custody, but the court declined that request and instead again ordered Mother to comply with the plan. The court also scheduled a thirty-day review hearing.
DCFS Petitions for Custody
¶9 Over the next month, “Mother failed to call into TASC 7 times, missed 3 drug tests, and tested positive for methamphetamines on two occasions.” As a result, on April 16, 2020, DCFS filed an expedited verified petition for custody.
¶10 About a week later, the juvenile court held a pretrial hearing on the custody petition. Mother entered a rule 34(e) response, and the court again determined that Mother had abused and neglected the Children. The court also found that DCFS had made “[r]easonable efforts” to “prevent the removal of” the Children but that those “efforts were unsuccessful.” The court thus ordered the Children to be removed from Mother and placed in the temporary custody of DCFS.
¶11 The court held a disposition hearing the following month. At that hearing, the court ordered Mother to comply with a newly created child and family plan, which contained “essentially the same provisions as the previous one,” including the requirements noted above. The court also ordered DCFS to provide reunification services, acknowledging that reunification was “the primary goal.”
Mother Requests Placement with Grandparents
¶12 At the pretrial and disposition hearings (and, as will be discussed, at subsequent hearings in the case as well), Mother requested that the Children be placed with her mother (Grandmother) and stepfather (Step-Grandfather) (collectively, Grandparents). After Mother made this request, however, the State notified the court that Step-Grandfather was unable to pass a DCFS background check. The record lacks some of the specifics regarding this background check, but it does show that DCFS informed the court that Step-Grandfather was unable to pass it because there were five cases against him in the Licensing Information System (LIS). The LIS is a “sub-part of the Management Information System,” a database that DCFS is statutorily required to maintain.2 Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-1006(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021). For an individual to be included in the LIS, DCFS must make “a supported finding” that the individual committed “a severe type of child abuse or neglect.” Id. § 62A-4a-1005(1); see also id. § 62A-4a-1006(1)(b).
¶13 DCFS gave information to Step-Grandfather about how to appeal the LIS cases. After he did, three of the cases were administratively overturned.3 But the remaining two were upheld because they “were of such significance that they [could not] be overturned.”
¶14 Even so, Mother still requested that the Children be placed with Grandparents. Over the course of several hearings, Grandmother informed the court that Step-Grandfather was only home one day every week, that the LIS cases in question were from “[a]bout 20 years ago,” and that Step-Grandfather was “never charged with sexual abuse.” Nonetheless, the court repeatedly decided against placing the Children with Grandparents.4
Juvenile Court Terminates Reunification Services
¶15 For the remainder of 2020, Mother struggled to comply with the new child and family plan. For example, although Mother successfully completed a mental health and substance abuse assessment, she “struggled for the first several months to fully engage in the therapy that was recommended for [her], with attendance being very sporadic and inconsistent.” On December 1, 2020, Mother was scheduled to check into an inpatient treatment facility. But when the DCFS caseworker went to pick her up, “Mother did not answer the door and missed her appointment to check in.” Mother belatedly went to the treatment facility the following week, but on arrival, she tested positive for methamphetamine. When the facility offered to accept Mother despite the positive drug test, she “refused to enter.” After learning of these events, the court ordered Mother to be jailed if she was not in an inpatient treatment facility by December 23, 2020. Mother checked into a facility on December 23, but she left two days later.
¶16 In February 2021, Mother gave birth to another child, A.W. Shortly after A.W.’s birth, DCFS removed him from Mother’s care via warrant. He was returned to Mother’s custody once his umbilical cord test came back showing no presence of illegal drugs. But the court ordered Mother to “strictly comply with the court’s drug testing orders going forward, or A.W. would likely be removed from [her] custody again.” In April 2021, the court removed A.W. from Mother’s custody based on Mother’s “ongoing drug testing issues.”5
¶17 The court held a permanency hearing for the Children in May 2021. At that hearing, the court found that DCFS had made “[r]easonable efforts” to provide reunification services and that Mother “partially complied with the requirements of the service plan.” But the court stated that it could not find that Mother had “the strength to stay away from drugs with the [Children] in the home.” In support of this, the court detailed the many times that Mother had tested positive for illegal drugs or had failed to test at all. The court further determined that it could not extend reunification services for the Children, so it changed their final permanency plan to adoption.6
Mother Enters an Inpatient Treatment Facility
¶18 From May 3, 2021, through August 31, 2021, Mother received inpatient drug treatment. Although she tested positive for methamphetamine when she arrived, she reportedly did very well in the program and remained drug-free throughout her stay. Before leaving treatment, Mother told a caseworker that she no longer wished to live with the alleged father because he was also struggling to stay clean. But when Mother left the facility, “she almost immediately” started living with the alleged father again and “very quickly relapsed on methamphetamine.” Mother later testified that in the two months after she left the facility, she had “3 relapses and 5 methamphetamine uses.”
Juvenile Court Terminates Mother’s Parental Rights
¶19 On June 15, 2021, the State filed a verified petition for termination of Mother’s parental rights. The court held a termination hearing on November 1, 2021, and the parties stipulated to present the evidence by proffer and have the witnesses available for cross-examination. In support of its petition, the State proffered the testimony of two DCFS caseworkers, and those caseworkers also appeared in court for live cross-examination. The State also offered, and the court received, the caseworkers’ case notes. The Children’s current foster mother (Foster Mother) testified in person.
¶20 The first DCFS caseworker (Caseworker 1) had worked with the family from the Twins’ births until December 2020. The State proffered that she would have testified about DCFS’s unsuccessful efforts to place the Children with relatives, Mother’s supervised visits with the Children, and Mother’s efforts to comply with the plan, including drug testing and participation in therapy. Caseworker 1 also would have discussed how she arranged to take Mother to an inpatient treatment facility and how Mother did not answer the door when Caseworker 1 arrived.
¶21 On cross-examination, Mother’s counsel asked how Mother interacted with the Children during the supervised visits. Caseworker 1 responded that Mother was “very engaging” with the Children and that the “visits went very well.” Caseworker 1 also agreed that Mother clearly loved the Children. When Counsel asked if Mother was a “good and appropriate parent[ ]” “but for the drug use,” Caseworker 1 replied, “Yes, except for the drug use.” Counsel also asked about her observations of Mother’s home. Caseworker 1 responded that “[m]ost of the time, [she] was just in the living room” and that she “did not see any drugs or paraphernalia.”7 Caseworker 1 also agreed that before the Children were removed from Mother’s custody, she never observed them to be without proper food, clothing, supervision, affection, or medical care.
¶22 Mother’s counsel also questioned Caseworker 1 about why the Children weren’t placed with Grandparents. Caseworker 1 responded that the Children were not placed with Grandparents because “[t]here were some things on [Step-Grandfather’s] background check that [DCFS] just could not look at them being a placement.” When asked if she remembered what was troubling about Step-Grandfather’s background check, Caseworker 1 answered, “I don’t, no. Usually I look at those, and once it’s not acceptable for our agency, it – you know, that’s pretty much it for me.”
¶23 The guardian ad litem (the GAL) assigned to the Children also cross-examined Caseworker 1. When the GAL asked if Mother took responsibility for her drug use, Caseworker 1 responded that although Mother “was always very apologetic,” she didn’t “follow through” or “do what we asked.” Caseworker 1 said that Mother had “a tendency to blame other people for [her] problems.” And when asked about Mother’s drug testing, Caseworker 1 said that it “went in waves,” where Mother would “do really well for a while” but then “wouldn’t do well for a while.”
¶24 The State also proffered testimony from a second DCFS caseworker (Caseworker 2). Caseworker 2 had worked with the family from December 2020 through the termination hearing in November 2021. She would have testified that she attempted to take Mother to the inpatient treatment facility in December 2020, that Mother tested positive for methamphetamine when they arrived at the facility, and that, for “unclear” reasons, Mother ultimately refused to stay at the facility. Caseworker 2 also would have testified that later in December 2020, Mother entered an inpatient program but left after two days. And she would have testified about attempts to place the Children with relatives, the supervised visits, and Mother’s efforts to comply with the plan. She also would have explained how Mother’s youngest child, A.W., was placed in DCFS custody due to Mother’s failed drug tests. Caseworker 2 would have further testified that Mother entered an inpatient treatment facility in May 2021, that Mother had plans to move in with Grandmother after she left the program because the alleged father is one of her “triggers,” but that after leaving the program, Mother almost immediately moved back in with the alleged father.8
¶25 During her cross-examination, Caseworker 2 acknowledged that Mother “interact[s] very well” with the Children and described her behavior during the supervised visits as “appropriate.” Caseworker 2 also acknowledged that in the times she had been inside Mother’s home, she had never “seen any sign of drug use or paraphernalia.” But when the GAL asked if the Children could “be safely returned to the home today,” Caseworker 2 replied, “No.” And when asked if Mother was “a good and appropriate parent” “but for” her drug use, Caseworker 2 responded, “I don’t like the term good parent, bad parent. I think it’s too subjective. But I think in answer to that, I would say she is an appropriate parent. I think she’s a parent with issues, but she tries her best.”
¶26 Foster Mother testified next. Foster Mother explained that she and her husband started fostering N.W. in April 2020 and J.W. and B.W. in May 2020. Foster Mother described the Children as her “whole world” and testified that she and her husband were willing to adopt the Children.
¶27 Foster Mother then spoke about each individual child. She said that B.W., for example, is “enrolled in early intervention” with PrimeTime 4 Kids and “receives speech and language therapy.”9 And she said that J.W. also does PrimeTime 4 Kids, but that he doesn’t have any “physical limitations or medical needs.” Foster Mother also explained that N.W. has a rare chromosomal syndrome. When N.W. first came into their home, he was on “supplemental oxygen 24 hours a day” and had a G-tube to help with feeding, which required daily cleaning. She further testified that N.W.’s chromosomal syndrome has caused developmental delays and that he will “remain delayed.” On cross-examination, she discussed how she and her husband “did a lot of research” into the syndrome by watching YouTube videos and “lectures given by doctors.”
¶28 After the State rested, Mother proffered the testimony of three witnesses: a clinical mental health counselor (Counselor) who worked with Mother at the inpatient treatment facility, Grandmother, and Mother. As had occurred with the State’s witnesses, the three witnesses’ testimonies were offered via proffer, and Grandmother and Mother were then subject to live cross-examination.10
¶29 Counselor would have testified that Mother entered the inpatient treatment facility in May 2021 and successfully completed the program in August 2021. She would have stated that “[o]ver the last four to five weeks of her treatment, [Mother] gave this program her all, attending all groups, individual sessions, case management appointments, et cetera.” Counselor also would have explained that Mother gave “each assignment careful thought and consideration” and had “agreed to continue to work on learning parenting skills and how to improve her ability to manage her emotions in a healthy way.” And Counselor would have testified that Mother “created a strong after care plan that included support from 12-step meetings, her religious community, and her ongoing therapists.” After proffering Counselor’s testimony, Mother’s counsel clarified that Counselor and Mother had not been in contact since Mother left the facility.
¶30 Mother proffered Grandmother’s testimony next. Grandmother would have testified that Mother and B.W. lived with her until B.W. was six months old. Grandmother would have described Mother as a “phenomenal mother” who dedicated her time to teaching and loving the Children. She would have described how Mother took the Children to the doctor frequently. She would have also testified that “she’s absolutely never known [Mother] to be high around her kids” and that she “didn’t know much about the drug use when [Mother and the alleged father] were living with [Grandparents] because they were never high around the kids.” Grandmother would have further explained that Mother had been working hard toward recovery and had been implementing what she learned in therapy.
¶31 Grandmother would have also testified about her attempts to have the Children placed with her and Step-Grandfather. She would have explained that they were denied placement because of the LIS cases against Step-Grandfather and “that they went through the appeal process,” “but they were denied again.” She would have testified that she and Step-Grandfather were “willing to work any safety plan requested by DCFS, including line-of-sight supervision any time” Step-Grandfather is around the Children. Grandmother would have also stated that Step-Grandfather was “willing to do a sexual behavioral risk assessment” and that “they would follow through with any treatment.”
¶32 At this point, the court asked for clarification about when Grandparents had requested custody, and Mother’s counsel provided a summary of when Grandparents had done so.11 Mother’s counsel further explained that DCFS denied placement with Grandparents because DCFS claimed there was “a substantiated sexual abuse allegation on the licensing database” that couldn’t be overturned. She said that DCFS “would not provide any more details than that as to what their concerns were.” When the court asked if Grandparents’ placement request was denied each time, Mother’s counsel stated that the requests were “denied,” or, rather, “continued more often than denied outright.”
¶33 Mother then proffered her testimony. Mother would have testified that “she loves her children very much and has worked very hard to be successful in this case.” She would have testified that she promptly addressed all safety concerns that DCFS caseworkers had about her home, like getting a fire extinguisher. She would have also explained how she always took the Children to their doctors’ appointments and how they were healthy and clean when they went into the State’s custody. With respect to her drug use, she would have described her improvement since entering a treatment facility and how she’s worked on implementing the skills she learned. Mother would have also acknowledged, however, that she was “not yet in active recovery.” But Mother would have testified that “despite her substance abuse disorder, … she always kept the drugs out of her home” and that she never used “around the [Children] and never at the house.”
¶34 During cross-examination, Mother acknowledged that she and the Twins’ umbilical cords tested positive for methamphetamine when they were born. She also acknowledged that she tested positive for drugs while pregnant with A.W. And Mother confirmed that since leaving the inpatient treatment facility, she had three relapses and used methamphetamine five times. She further testified that she created a safety plan while in the treatment facility and that she did not follow that plan. And she testified that since leaving the treatment facility, she had not been in contact with her “after care” contacts.
¶35 After closing arguments from all parties, the court ruled from the bench that grounds for termination existed and that it was in the Children’s best interest to terminate both parents’ parental rights. The court later issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law detailing its findings. There, the court found that Mother “struggled with drug testing and maintaining [her] sobriety throughout the entirety of the case.” The court then made extensive findings about Mother’s drug use, including a finding that “in 2020, Mother had 36 missed call-ins, 19 missed tests, 5 tests that were positive for methamphetamine[,] including on dates when she would have been pregnant with A.W., 1 test that was positive for alcohol, 1 test that was positive for THC[,] and 1 diluted test.” The court further found that in January 2021, “Mother had 4 missed call-ins and 1 missed test”; that in February 2021, Mother had “perfect testing compliance”; that in March 2021, “Mother missed 1 test”; and that in April 2021, “Mother failed to test on 4 occasions, failed to call in on 2 occasions, and tested positive for methamphetamine” on one occasion. Relatedly, the court found that Mother “quickly relapsed” after leaving the inpatient treatment facility and that, by her own testimony, “she had 3 relapses and 5 methamphetamine uses in the short two months’ time from leaving treatment to the date of trial.”
¶36 The court also concluded that “Mother’s attendance at therapy up until April of 2021 can be described as inconsistent at best.” In particular, the court noted DCFS’s attempts to help Mother get into an inpatient treatment facility and Mother’s initial resistance to inpatient treatment.
¶37 The court also made findings about Mother’s efforts and progress. It found that “by all accounts,” Mother did well at the inpatient treatment facility and “gave the program her all, attended all groups, individual sessions and case management meetings and that she excelled in her program and appeared to grow in her confidence and sobriety.” The court also found that “Mother completed a parenting class, consistently participated in family team meetings, kept in regular contact with DCFS, allowed DCFS to conduct home visits, obtained proper housing, attended visits with the [Children], and completed some adult education classes.” And the court concluded “that Mother appears to have good parental instincts and was always appropriate and attentive during visits with the [Children].” The court also stated that it was “very clear” that Mother “love[s] the [Children] very much.”
¶38 The court then addressed whether DCFS made “reasonable efforts” to provide reunification services. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(3)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022).12 The court concluded that DCFS did make reasonable efforts, such as “holding regular family team meetings, completing regular home visits,” helping Mother get into a treatment facility, and providing transportation. The court also noted that Mother never argued that DCFS failed to make reasonable efforts. And the court pointed out that because Mother was provided reunification services for A.W., she was “afforded an opportunity to take full advantage of these ‘additional’ services and ‘additional’ time to remedy the safety concerns that brought the [Children]” into DCFS custody.
¶39 Having made these findings, the court then engaged in the two-part inquiry for termination of parental rights, determining (1) whether a statutory ground for termination exists and, (2) if so, whether termination is in the best interest of the child. See In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 62, 472 P.3d 827.
¶40 On the question of whether grounds for termination existed, the court determined that four separate grounds existed:
• First, the court found that Mother’s use of illegal drugs “constituted abuse and neglect of the [Children].” See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(1)(b) (listing “that the parent has abused or neglected the child” as a ground for termination). In support of this, the court relied on Mother’s drug use while pregnant and her “ongoing continued use of methamphetamines.”
• Second, the court found that Mother was an unfit parent because her “habitual use of methamphetamines and inability to maintain sobriety for any significant amount of time during the pendency of this matter render[s] [her] unable to properly care for the [Children].” See id. § 80-4-301(1)(c) (listing “that the parent is unfit or incompetent” as a ground for termination).
• Third, the court found that the Children “are being cared for in an out-of-home placement under the supervision of the juvenile court,” Mother is “either unwilling or unable to remedy the circumstances that caused the [Children] to be in an out-of-home placement notwithstanding reasonable and appropriate reunification efforts by DCFS, and there is a substantial likelihood that Mother … will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care in the near future.” See id. § 80-4-301(1)(d)(i) (listing a ground for termination applicable when children are “being cared for in an out-of-home placement under the supervision of the juvenile court”). Relevant here, the court found that despite nearly two years of reunification services, Mother was “still in active methamphetamine addiction and use, which is the entire reason the [Children] were placed in DCFS custody to begin with.” The court further found that “more than a year after subjecting the [Twins] to fetal exposure of methamphetamines, Mother did the same thing to yet another child, all while participating in reunification services with DCFS.”
• Fourth, the court found that Mother “demonstrated a failure of parental adjustment.” See id. § 80-4-301(1)(e) (listing “failure of parental adjustment” as a ground for termination”); id. § 80-4-102(2) (defining “failure of parental adjustment”). Here, the court again relied on its conclusion that “with respect to Mother’s … methamphetamine addiction, very little if any progress has been made.”
¶41 Because it found that grounds for termination existed, the court then moved to the question of whether termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. As part of this analysis, the court considered whether “efforts to place the child with kin who have, or are willing to come forward to care for the child, were given due weight.” (Quoting Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(12)(b)(ii) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022).) The court concluded that efforts to place the Children with kin were given due weight. With respect to Grandparents, the court stated that Step-Grandfather “did not pass the DCFS background check and, as a result, [Grandparents’] request for placement was denied.” It further explained that the “denial was administratively appealed” and that Grandparents lost the appeal. And it finally noted that when Mother asked the court to “waive the failed background check” and place the Children with Grandparents anyway, the court “denied this request after considering all of the information and argument from the parties.” The court accordingly concluded that “due weight” had been given to efforts to place the Children with Grandparents but that the placement “did not occur due to [Step-Grandfather] failing his background check.”13
¶42 The court then considered whether termination was “strictly necessary” to promote the Children’s best interest. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(12)(b) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022); see also In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 66, 472 P.3d 827. On this, the court made several findings about the Children’s relationship with their foster parents, including:
• The Twins “have been with the foster parents nearly their entire lives and [B.W.] for nearly half of his young life.”
• The Children “have thrived in the care of the foster parents. [B.W.] has made great strides in his speech through regularly working with a speech therapist. [N.W.] has an extremely rare condition … which results in many developmental delays and requires extra precautions and care. The foster parents have spent many hours researching the condition and how they can best care for [N.W.]”
• The Children “have formed a strong familial bond with the foster parents and look to the foster parents as their natural parents.”
• “The foster parents have treated the [Children] as their own and have tailored their lives so that one of their primary objectives is to provide for the needs and safety of the [Children].”
• “The [Children’s] sibling, A.W.[,] is also in the care of the foster parents.”
¶43 Based on these findings, the court concluded that “it is clearly in the [Children’s] best interests to have parental rights terminated so that they may be adopted.” The court further explained, “Given the young age of the [Children] and the amount of time they have been in the home of the foster parents in relation to their young ages, it is strictly necessary to terminate parental rights so the [Children] may be adopted and receive the permanency they deserve.” The court thus terminated Mother’s parental rights in the Children. Mother now appeals.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶44 Mother first challenges the juvenile court’s determination that grounds for termination existed. She next challenges the juvenile court’s best interest determination, arguing that the court erred when it “failed to require clear and convincing evidence to preclude a kinship placement with Grandmother” and “concluded that it was strictly necessary to terminate Mother’s parental rights.”
¶45 “Whether a parent’s rights should be terminated presents a mixed question of law and fact.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 7, 496 P.3d 58 (quotation simplified). We will thus overturn a juvenile court’s termination decision only if “it is against the clear weight of the evidence or leaves [us] with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (quotation simplified). Put differently, we will overturn a termination decision only if the juvenile court “either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” Id. (quotation simplified); see also id. ¶ 12.
ANALYSIS
¶46 In the Termination of Parental Rights Act (the Act), our legislature set forth two findings that a juvenile court must make before terminating parental rights. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-103(2)(c) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022); see also In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 46, 472 P.3d 827. First, the juvenile court must find that at least one ground for termination exists under Utah Code section 80-4-301. See In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 46, 472 P.3d 827; In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶ 30, 463 P.3d 66. Second, the court must find that termination is in the best interest of the child. See In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 46, 472 P.3d 827. Both findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-103(2)(a); In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 48, 472 P.3d 827.
¶47 In this case, the court terminated Mother’s parental rights in the Children after finding that four grounds for termination existed and that termination was in the Children’s best interest. Mother challenges both parts of that ruling.
I. Grounds for Termination
¶48 Utah Code section 80-4-301 lists several possible grounds for terminating parental rights. The juvenile court found that four of them existed with respect to Mother: “that the parent has neglected or abused the child,” Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(1)(b) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022); “that the parent is unfit or incompetent,” id. § 80-4-301(1)(c); “that the child is being cared for in an out-of-home placement” and additional requirements have been met, id. § 80-4-301(1)(d)(i); and “failure of parental adjustment,” id. § 80-4-301(1)(e).
¶49 Mother challenges the court’s finding of each ground, contending that there wasn’t clear and convincing evidence to support any of them. But we conclude that the evidence was sufficient with respect to at least one of the grounds—failure of parental adjustment—and we accordingly reject Mother’s argument. See In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶ 30, 463 P.3d 66 (explaining “that the presence of a single statutory ground is sufficient to fulfill the first element of the termination test”).14
¶50 As defined by the Act, failure of parental adjustment “means that a parent or parents are unable or unwilling within a reasonable time to substantially correct the circumstances, conduct, or conditions that led to placement of their child outside of their home, notwithstanding reasonable and appropriate efforts made by the division to return the child to the home.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-102(2) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). Here, the juvenile court found that Mother demonstrated a failure of parental adjustment because, although she made “significant progress with a number of requirements on the child and family plan, [she was] still in active methamphetamine addiction and use, which is the entire reason the [Children] were placed in DCFS custody to begin with.” The court particularly focused on Mother’s testimony that she used methamphetamine while pregnant with A.W. and that “in the two months leading up to trial, she used methamphetamine on five occasions.”
¶51 After reviewing the record, we cannot conclude that the court’s finding that Mother demonstrated a failure of parental adjustment went “against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 7, 496 P.3d 58 (quotation simplified). As explained, DCFS filed a petition for protective supervision services a few weeks after the Twins’ birth, after the Twins’ umbilical cords tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. The juvenile court granted the petition, adjudicated the Children as abused and neglected, and ordered Mother to submit to drug testing as part of a child and family plan. Two months later, the court removed the Children from Mother and placed them in DCFS custody because Mother missed drug tests and tested positive for methamphetamine.
¶52 Again, this ground looks to whether the parent was able to “substantially correct” the “conduct” or “conditions that led to placement of [the] child outside of their home.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-102(2). So here, since the Children had been removed from the home because of Mother’s positive and missed drug tests, the question before the court was whether Mother had “substantially corrected” that behavior between their removal in April 2020 and the termination hearing in November 2021.
¶53 The record supports the court’s conclusion that Mother hadn’t. Indeed, the record shows that up through the termination hearing, Mother continued to struggle with drug testing and drug use. As the court found, “in 2020, Mother had 36 missed call-ins, 19 missed tests, 5 tests that were positive for methamphetamine[,] including on dates when she would have been pregnant with A.W., 1 test that was positive for alcohol, 1 test that was positive for THC[,] and 1 diluted test.” From January to March 2021, Mother had 4 missed call-ins and 2 missed tests. “In April 2021, Mother failed to test on 4 occasions, failed to call in on two occasions, and tested positive for methamphetamine” once. From May to August 2021, Mother was in the inpatient treatment facility, where she reportedly did very well. But upon leaving the facility, Mother “almost immediately returned” to live with the alleged father and “very quickly relapsed on methamphetamine.” Indeed, in “the short two months’ time from leaving treatment to the date of trial,” Mother “had 3 relapses and 5 methamphetamine uses.” Mother has not challenged these findings, and they support a finding that Mother was “unable or unwilling within a reasonable time to substantially correct the circumstances, conduct, or conditions that led to placement of [the Children] outside of [her] home.” Id.
¶54 Mother nevertheless argues that the court improperly took a “ ‘zero-tolerance’ approach” and failed “to in any way take into account Mother’s efforts and progress.” But the court didn’t take a zero-tolerance approach. Rather, the court concluded that Mother was unable or unwilling to substantially correct her drug use after making findings about Mother’s repeated use of methamphetamine, including specific findings about her use while pregnant and again in the few months between her inpatient treatment and the termination hearing. The court also didn’t fail to “take into account Mother’s efforts and progress.” In its order, the court acknowledged that Mother had “made significant progress with a number of requirements on the child and family plan” and that Mother had “successfully completed” the inpatient treatment program. But the court then found that Mother “very quickly relapsed on methamphetamine” after leaving the facility and that Mother was still “in active methamphetamine addiction and use.” In short, the court recognized Mother’s progress, but it nevertheless found that even with this progress, her ongoing methamphetamine use still demonstrated that she was either unwilling or unable to substantially correct her drug use.
¶55 Mother also argues that she didn’t “willfully refuse to deal with her drug issue, but rather really tried to stay clean.” But a court can find failure of parental adjustment based on a parent’s unwillingness or inability to “substantially correct the circumstances, conduct, or conditions that led to placement of [the] child outside of their home.” Id. In this sense, a parent’s unsuccessful efforts, even if sincere, might not be sufficient to prevent a finding of failure of parental adjustment if the behavior that led to the child’s removal is not substantially corrected. See id. As explained, the court’s finding that Mother was either unwilling or unable to substantially correct her drug use does not go against the clear weight of the evidence, given that Mother continued to miss tests and continued to test positive even while benefiting from reunification services, and given that she “very quickly relapsed on methamphetamine” after spending over three months at an inpatient treatment facility. In short, the evidence showed that Mother either could not stop using drugs because of addiction, in which case she was unable to substantially correct the behavior, or that she was choosing to not stop using drugs, in which case she was unwilling. Either way, the court’s finding did not go against the clear weight of the evidence.
¶56 Lastly, Mother contends that her relapses “should only be disqualifying if the relapse renders her incapable of taking care of her children.” For this proposition, Mother cites Utah Code subsection 80-4-302(2)(c), which states, “In determining whether a parent or parents are unfit or have neglected a child the juvenile court shall consider: … habitual or excessive use of intoxicating liquors, controlled substances, or dangerous drugs that render the parent unable to care for the child. …” See id. § 80-4-302(2)(c) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). According to Mother, the court was only allowed to ground its termination decision in her drug use if it made specific findings that the drug use made her “unable to care” for the Children. See id.
¶57 But we have previously stated that the considerations listed under subsection 80-4-302(2) “apply to two specific grounds for termination under subsection [80-4-301(1)]—whether a parent is ‘unfit or incompetent’ pursuant to subsection [80-4-301(1)(c)], and whether a parent ‘has neglected or abused the child’ pursuant to subsection [80-4-301(1)(b)].” In re L.A., 2017 UT App 131, ¶ 33, 402 P.3d 69. This is because the statute only requires the juvenile court to take the listed considerations into account “[i]n determining whether a parent or parents are unfit or have neglected a child.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-302(2) (emphasis added). So under our controlling precedent, subsection 80-4-302(2) is inapplicable to the ground for termination at issue here, which is failure of parental adjustment. The court was thus not required to consider whether Mother’s drug use rendered her “unable to care for” the Children, and we need not consider Mother’s argument on that point. See id.; see also In re L.A., 2017 UT App 131, ¶ 33, 402 P.3d 69.
¶58 In short, there was sufficient evidence of Mother’s ongoing drug use, thereby also supporting the court’s finding that Mother was “unable or unwilling within a reasonable time to substantially correct the circumstances, conduct, or conditions that led to placement of [the Children] outside of their home.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-102(2). We are thus unconvinced that the court “failed to consider all of the facts” or that the court’s decision was “against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 7, 496 P.3d 58 (quotation simplified).
II. Best Interest
¶59 After finding that grounds for termination existed, the juvenile court determined that termination of Mother’s parental rights and adoption by the foster family was in the Children’s best interest. On appeal, Mother argues that there was not clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights, as opposed to placement with Grandparents, was in the Children’s best interest. Relatedly, she asks us to “remand with instructions to the juvenile court to consider the viability of guardianship or other custodial arrangements with Grandmother.” We decline this request and instead affirm the juvenile court’s best interest determination.15
¶60 If a juvenile court determines that grounds for termination exist, the court must then consider whether termination is in the child’s best interest. See In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 46, 472 P.3d 827; see also Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-103(2)(c) (explaining that a court should “consider the welfare and best interest of the child of paramount importance in determining whether to terminate parental rights”). This consideration should be directed by “two related pieces of important guidance” provided by our legislature. In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 27, 520 P.3d 38.
¶61 First, “[a] child’s need for a normal family life in a permanent home, and for positive, nurturing family relationships is usually best met by the child’s natural parents.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(8) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). There is accordingly “a strong preference for families to remain together.” In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 27, 520 P.3d 38. Second, a court should terminate parental rights only when doing so is “strictly necessary” “from the child’s point of view.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(1); see also In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 28, 520 P.3d 38. Put differently, “termination must be strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest.” In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 60, 472 P.3d 827. Because this analysis occurs “from the child’s point of view,” “the court’s focus should be firmly fixed on finding the outcome that best secures the child’s well-being.” Id. ¶ 64.
¶62 When considering whether termination is strictly necessary, a juvenile court must consider, “among other relevant factors,” whether “efforts to place the child with kin who have, or are willing to come forward to care for the child, were given due weight.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(12)(b)(ii). Our supreme court has clarified that this part of the inquiry also requires courts to explore whether other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family, short of imposing the ultimate remedy of terminating parental rights. In some cases, alternatives will be few and unsatisfactory, and termination of the parent’s rights will be the option that is in the child’s best interest. But in other cases, courts should consider whether other less-permanent arrangements might serve the child’s needs just as well. In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 67, 472 P.3d 827 (quotation simplified).16
¶63 Two of our recent cases shed light on how a court should consider kinship placements: In re A.H., 2022 UT App 114, 518 P.3d 993, and In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, 520 P.3d 38.
¶64 In the first case, the State moved to terminate the rights of a mother and father to their seven children. In re A.H., 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 16, 518 P.3d 993. The juvenile court did not terminate the parents’ rights in the oldest five children, and those children were placed with their grandparents “under an order of permanent custody and guardianship.” Id. ¶ 21. But the court did terminate the parents’ rights in the youngest two children, and the court did so even though the grandparents were willing and able to care for those younger children. See id. ¶¶ 26, 29. The court’s decision regarding the younger children was based on its finding that it was in their best interest to be adopted by their foster family. Id. ¶ 29. We reversed on appeal, however, concluding “that the juvenile court’s best-interest determination was against the clear weight of the evidence presented at trial.” Id. ¶ 57. We did so because there was not clear and convincing evidence that terminating the parents’ rights in the younger children “was strictly necessary, especially given the presence of another available and acceptable option—permanent guardianship with [the grandparents], alongside their five siblings—that would not require permanent severance of familial bonds and that would serve the [younger children’s] best interest at least as well as adoption.” Id.
¶65 In the second case, a district court terminated a father’s parental rights after determining that it was in the child’s best interest to be adopted by his grandparents. In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶¶ 13, 16, 520 P.3d 38. On appeal, we held that the “court fell into legal error when it failed to expressly consider other apparent reasonable options short of termination that might serve [the child’s] best interest just as well.” Id. ¶ 37. More specifically, we concluded that “the court erred by failing to explain, on the record, why a permanent custody and guardianship arrangement” with the child’s grandparents “could not serve [the child’s] best interest, and why termination of [the father’s] parental rights—as opposed to imposition of a guardianship—was strictly necessary to further that interest.” Id. We accordingly vacated the termination order and remanded “the case for a renewed best-interest analysis.” Id.
¶66 From our review of these cases and the statutes that they interpreted, three principles emerge that matter here.
¶67 First, courts have an obligation to consider proposed kinship placements, and if a court rejects a kinship placement, it must give reasons on the record for doing so. See id. ¶ 32 (faulting a court for rejecting a kinship placement without explaining “why it rejected that option”); see also In re A.H., 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 37, 518 P.3d 993 (“Courts that order termination of parental rights without appropriately exploring feasible alternatives to termination have not properly applied the second part of the two-part termination test.” (quotation simplified)); In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 74, 472 P.3d 827 (explaining that strict necessity “requires the court to find, on the record, that no other option can achieve the same welfare and best interest for the child” as termination).
¶68 Second, although there’s a statutory preference for kinship placements, and although courts must appropriately explore kinship placements as a result, courts that explore such options may then conclude, on the facts before them, that a different option is in fact in a child’s best interest. See In re A.H., 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 37, 518 P.3d 993 (“In some cases, alternatives will be few and unsatisfactory, and termination of the parent’s rights will be the option that is in the child’s best interest.” (quotation simplified)); see also In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 29, 520 P.3d 38 (same). On this, In re A.H. stands as something of an illustrative contrast. There, we explained that if “a completely appropriate kinship placement” exists, it “becomes significantly more difficult” to show that termination is strictly necessary. 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 49, 518 P.3d 993. And we accordingly reversed in that case because there were “no concerns” with the proposed kinship placement and there was accordingly not clear and convincing evidence that termination was strictly necessary. Id. ¶¶ 50, 57. But if a case presents itself in which a court does appropriately consider the proposed kinship options and yet concludes that those options are not completely appropriate based on valid concerns, the court could then reject the proposed kinship placement and find that termination is strictly necessary. See id. ¶ 37; see also In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 66, 472 P.3d 827; In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 29, 520 P.3d 38.
¶69 Third, if a court has complied with its statutory obligations, its resultant best interest determination is entitled to deference. See In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 18, 520 P.3d 38; see also In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 22, 496 P.3d 58. This is because the best interest determination “is a factually intense inquiry dependent on the unique circumstances and needs of each child.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 22, 496 P.3d 58 (quotation simplified). Furthermore, “the juvenile court has a superior perspective in light of its view of the demeanor of both parents and children.” Id. ¶ 23. For these reasons, “we do not lightly reverse a court’s best-interests determination.” In re A.H., 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 38, 518 P.3d 993. But to be clear, a juvenile court’s determinations are not “afforded a high degree of deference”; rather, “the deference afforded to the juvenile court is the same level of deference given to all lower court findings of fact and fact-like determinations of mixed questions.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶¶ 29–30, 496 P.3d 58. Accordingly, we will overturn a juvenile court’s decision “if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” Id. ¶ 31 (quotation simplified). In In re J.J.W., for example, we remanded because the district court failed to consider whether a kinship placement could serve the child’s best interest. 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 37. And in In re A.H., we reversed where the juvenile court did consider the kinship placement but its decision went “against the clear weight of the evidence presented at trial.” 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 57, 518 P.3d 993.
¶70 With these principles in mind, we review the juvenile court’s best interest determination in this case and affirm.
¶71 First, unlike what occurred in In re J.J.W., the court here did “consider” and “discuss” the possibility of a kinship placement (namely, one with Grandparents). See 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 31, 520 P.3d 38. When Mother first requested that the Children be placed with Grandparents, the court denied that request because Step-Grandfather could not pass a background check. But the minutes for the hearing indicate that the court planned to “continue to work on placement clearance of” Grandparents. And the minutes from later hearings indicate that placement with Grandparents continued to be a topic of discussion among the parties and the court. Notably, the parties informed the court that although Step-Grandfather was able to get three of his LIS cases overturned, two could not be overturned because of their significance. In its termination order, the court documented this history, explaining that Step-Grandfather “did not pass the DCFS background check and, as a result, [Grandparents’] request for placement was denied.” The court explained further: “The denial was administratively appealed, which [Grandparents] lost. Thereafter, Mother … asked the Court to waive the failed background check and place the [Children] in [Grandparents’] direct custody. The Court denied this request after considering all of the information and argument from the parties.” And it later concluded that “due weight was given to possible kin placements, but they did not occur due to [Step-Grandfather] failing his background check.”
¶72 Despite all this, Mother argues that the court’s consideration was inadequate because the court did not further consider Grandparents’ apparent willingness to comply with a safety plan and Step-Grandfather’s offer to complete a sexual behavioral risk assessment. Relatedly, Mother points out “that Step-Grandfather worked out of the house six days a week” and thus claims “that his presence in Grandmother’s household would therefore be minimal.” But there is nothing in the record to suggest that the court didn’t consider this information. Rather, the record indicates that the court considered it but still concluded that Grandparents were an inappropriate placement given the import of Step-Grandfather’s LIS cases and background.
¶73 In short, the juvenile court repeatedly considered the possibility of placing the Children with Grandparents. It is thus clear to us that the court fully complied with its obligation to “appropriately explor[e]” whether they were an appropriate placement option. See In re A.H., 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 37, 518 P.3d 993.
¶74 Second, unlike what occurred in In re A.H., there were valid concerns in this case with Grandparents. See id. ¶ 50 (explaining that there were “no concerns” with the grandparents and that the juvenile court even found that they were “certainly appropriate caregivers”). As explained above, the juvenile court rejected Grandparents as a placement option because Step-Grandfather could not pass the DCFS background check due to his cases in the LIS. We see no basis for invalidating the court’s conclusion about the import of Step-Grandfather’s background.
¶75 If DCFS “makes a supported finding that a person committed a severe type of child abuse or neglect,” it enters “the name and other identifying information of the perpetrator with the supported finding” into the LIS. Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-1005(1)(b)(i) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021). A “supported finding” “means a finding by [DCFS] based on the evidence available at the completion of an investigation that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that abuse, neglect, or dependency occurred.” Id. § 62A-4a-101(42). If the alleged perpetrator is “18 years of age or older,” then “severe type of child abuse or neglect” means “chronic abuse,” “severe abuse,” “sexual abuse,” “sexual exploitation,” “abandonment,” “chronic neglect,” or “severe neglect.” Id. § 62A-4a-1002(1)(i) (2018). If the alleged perpetrator is “under the age of 18,” then “severe type of child abuse or neglect” means “serious physical injury, as defined in Subsection 76-5-109(1), to another child which indicates a significant risk to other children” or “sexual behavior with or upon another child which indicates a significant risk to other children.” Id. § 62A-4a-1002(1)(ii).17
¶76 As part of this process, DCFS must “serve notice of the finding on the alleged perpetrator.” Id. § 62A-4a-1005(1)(a) (Supp. 2021). The alleged perpetrator may then “file a written request asking [DCFS] to review the findings made,” “immediately petition the juvenile court under Section 80-3-404,” or “sign a written consent to … the supported finding” and entry in the LIS. Id. § 62A-4a-1005(3)(a). DCFS must remove an alleged perpetrator’s name and information from LIS “if the severe type of child abuse or neglect upon which the [LIS] entry was based: (A) is found to be unsubstantiated or without merit by the juvenile court under Section 80-3-404; or (B) is found to be substantiated, but is subsequently reversed on appeal.” Id. § 62A-4a-1005(e)(i). A finding is “substantiated” if a juvenile court determines “based on a preponderance of the evidence that abuse or neglect occurred.” Id. § 62A-4a-101(40).
¶77 Mother is correct that the record does not include the underlying facts of the LIS cases, and it may have been helpful for the analyses of both the juvenile court and our court if such information had been provided below. Nevertheless, the record is still sufficiently clear on several key things. One is that Step-Grandfather at one point had five cases in the LIS. These cases would have necessarily required a finding from DCFS that Step-Grandfather committed “a severe type of child abuse or neglect.” Id. § 62A-4a-1005(1). Another is that DCFS made efforts to help Step-Grandfather get the cases overturned, that three of the cases were overturned, but that two cases were still upheld because they were “of such significance that they cannot be overturned.”18 And finally, Grandmother’s proffered testimony was that there “was a successful reunification” in at least one of those cases, which meant that, whatever it was, the conduct at issue was serious enough that Step-Grandfather’s own children had been removed from his custody at some point.
¶78 We simply cannot fault the juvenile court for finding that it was not in the Children’s best interest to be placed in a home with somebody who, despite having tried to be removed from the LIS, nevertheless remained in the LIS based on two prior cases that were “of such significance that they cannot be overturned.” See In re J.P., 2021 UT App 134, ¶¶ 11, 20–23, 502 P.3d 1247 (upholding a juvenile court’s determination that placement with relatives was inappropriate where one member of the household had a “history of violence”). Indeed, beyond the obvious safety concerns raised by the LIS cases, we further note some legislative support for the court’s assessment of their significance to the question before it. By statute,a person who is listed in the LIS “may be disqualified from adopting a child, receiving state funds as a child care provider, or being licensed by” DCFS. Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-1005(2)(a)(v). While Mother points out that a kinship placement is not precisely the same thing as an adoption or being licensed by DCFS, this statute still evidences the legislature’s conclusion that placement on the LIS should result in some restriction of a person’s ability to have sustained access to children. Given this, we don’t see why a juvenile court couldn’t likewise conclude that there is good reason to not place children in the care of someone who is listed in the LIS.
¶79 Mother nevertheless contends that the facts underlying the LIS cases could have been fairly benign and therefore an invalid basis for not placing the Children with Grandparents. But if that were true, Step-Grandfather could have testified at the termination hearing, provided more information, and thus explained to the court himself why the LIS cases shouldn’t preclude placement. But he didn’t. Because of this, what the court was left with was that Step-Grandfather still had LIS cases that were based on a finding that he committed “a severe type of child abuse or neglect,” and that almost eighteen months after learning that these cases could prevent placement, two of the cases were still in the LIS because of their significance. Given all this, we decline to fault the court for not delving deeper into evidence that Mother could have provided but didn’t.19
¶80 Third and finally, given the court’s consideration of Grandparents and the information that it received throughout the proceedings and then noted in its order, we defer to its ultimate conclusion that although there was a potential kinship option, termination was in the Children’s best interest. See In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 22, 496 P.3d 58. As explained above, DCFS found that Step-Grandfather committed “a severe type of child abuse or neglect” and that two of the cases could not be overturned because of their significance. Faced with those facts, the juvenile court could and indeed did validly conclude that placement with Grandparents would be “unsatisfactory,” In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 67, 472 P.3d 827 (quotation simplified), and not “acceptable,” In re A.H., 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 49, 518 P.3d 993.
¶81 Having properly rejected the proposed kinship placement, the court then explained why adoption was in the Children’s best interest. It found that the Children had “thrived in the care of the foster parents” and “formed a strong familial bond with the foster parents and look to the foster parents as their natural parents.” The court also explained that N.W. has a rare chromosomal syndrome and that the foster parents have spent time researching the condition and learning how to best care for N.W. And with respect to the Children, the court found that the foster parents “treated [the Children] as their own” and “tailored their lives so that one of their primary objectives is to provide for the needs and safety of” the Children. These findings amply demonstrate that adoption by the foster parents was indeed a viable and positive option for the Children.
¶82 Given the findings detailed above, Mother has not persuaded us that the court “failed to consider all of the facts” or that it “considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 7, 496 P.3d 58 (quotation simplified). We accordingly decline to disrupt the court’s determination that it was in the Children’s best interest to be adopted by their foster family and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was strictly necessary to achieve that outcome.
CONCLUSION
¶83 The court’s finding that grounds for termination existed was not against the clear weight of the evidence, nor was its determination that terminating Mother’s parental rights was strictly necessary to promote the Children’s best interest. The decision below is accordingly affirmed.
——————–
1 When the Twins were born, Mother was living with the Children’s alleged father. The alleged father participated throughout the proceedings, and at the close of the same termination proceeding at issue in this appeal, the juvenile court terminated his rights, if any, in the Children. In a separate appeal, this court upheld that decision based on the alleged father’s failure to establish paternity. See Order, Case No. 20210915-CA (Feb. 18, 2022).
Mother was married to another man when each of the Children were born. This made him their presumptive father under the Utah Uniform Parentage Act. See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-15-204(1)(a) (LexisNexis 2018). But although this man was properly served, he never appeared. The juvenile court thus determined that he had abandoned the Children and terminated his parental rights as well. That portion of the court’s order is not at issue in this appeal.
2 The Management Information System “contain[s] all key elements of each family’s current child and family plan” and “alert[s] caseworkers regarding deadlines for completion of and compliance with policy, including child and family plans.” Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-1003(3)(a), (b) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021).
Effective September 1, 2022, several sections relevant to the LIS were repealed and renumbered. Compare id. §§ 62A-4a-101, -1005, -1006, with id. §§ 80-2-102, -708, -1002 (Supp. 2022). We cite to the versions in effect at the time of the termination hearing.
3 Although not entirely clear from the record, it appears that it was DCFS that administratively overturned three of the LIS cases against Step-Grandfather. See generally Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-1005(3)(i) (explaining that “the alleged perpetrator” may “file a written request asking [DCFS] to review the findings made”).
4 The Children were initially placed in the care of a foster mother. When the foster mother was no longer able to care for all the Children, the Twins went to live with another foster family. In either April or May 2020, all the Children went to live with a new foster family, where they remained through the duration of the proceedings.
5 The termination decision at issue in this appeal applied only to Mother’s parental rights in the Children. But because the juvenile court’s decision in this case was partly based on Mother’s choices while pregnant with A.W., we include those relevant facts.
6 Unless a statutory exception applies, “the juvenile court may not extend reunification services beyond 12 months after the day on which the minor is initially removed from the minor’s home.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-409(6) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). As the juvenile court later explained in its termination decision, Mother was provided with separate reunification services with respect to A.W., so she was provided “ ‘additional’ services and ‘additional’ time to remedy the safety concerns that brought the [Children] in this matter into DCFS custody.”
7 The supervised visits occurred at either a DCFS office or a park, but the DCFS caseworkers periodically made visits to Mother’s home.
8 Grandmother, whose testimony was offered via proffer, would have testified that Mother had planned to move in with her after leaving the inpatient treatment facility, that there was room for Mother to move in, but that Mother never came to live with her.
9 “PrimeTime 4 Kids is an early intervention program serving children 0–2 and their families. … Early intervention is a federally mandated program that is established to help children 0–2 with developmental disabilities.” PrimeTime 4 Kids, https://primetime4kids.org/ [https://perma.cc/HC8T-U7GF].
10 The alleged father also testified, but his testimony was relevant to his asserted parental rights, which are not at issue in this appeal.
11 The juvenile court judge that presided over the termination hearing was new to the case.
12 Because there have been no material changes to the relevant statutory provisions, we cite the current version unless otherwise noted.
13 The court also found that “one of Mother’s cousins expressed a desire to have the [Children] placed with her; however, the cousin never filled out the required background check.” Mother has not challenged this aspect of the court’s ruling.
14 The juvenile court found that DCFS made reasonable efforts to return the Children to Mother. It also found that Mother received “ ‘additional’ services and ‘additional’ time” due to A.W.’s birth. Mother did not challenge those findings below or on appeal.
15 In her briefing, Mother seems to separately argue that the Children should have been placed with Grandmother alone, even if Step-Grandfather was not a good placement option. But the court’s order, as well as minute entries from prior hearings, indicate that Mother and Grandparents collectively requested that the court place the Children with Grandmother and Step-Grandfather together. Regardless, even if the request was that the Children be placed with only Grandmother, it was still appropriate for the court to consider Step-Grandfather’s background since he lived with Grandmother. Cf. In re J.P., 2021 UT App 134, ¶¶ 11, 20–23, 502 P.3d 1247 (affirming a juvenile court’s determination that a placement was inappropriate where one member of the household had a “history of violence”).
16 Our supreme court was writing generally about the strict necessity requirement and not specifically about the kinship inquiry. But we take its analysis to apply to the kinship inquiry, which is, after all, a part of strict necessity. See In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 29 (applying this language to the kinship inquiry); In re A.H., 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 37, 518 P.3d 993 (same).
17 Section 62A-4a-1002 has been repealed. See In re A.C., 2022 UT App 121, ¶ 6 n.6, 521 P.3d 186. The definition of “severe type of child abuse or neglect” can now be found in Utah Code section 80-1-102(78)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022).
18 The State claimed that one of the cases involved sexual abuse, but Grandmother would have testified that the cases were “not … for any form of sexual abuse.” Our resolution of this issue does not turn on whether the cases involved sexual abuse, so we need not resolve this dispute.
19 At oral argument, Mother suggested that Step-Grandfather couldn’t have testified about the cases because they happened long ago and “he didn’t know” what the cases were about. If it were true that Step-Grandfather didn’t remember the underlying facts of the cases, he could have requested information from DCFS. See Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-1006(4)(c)(ii)(B) (explaining that DCFS can access the LIS to “respond to a request for information from a person whose name is listed in” the LIS).
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF K.K., S.K., AND S.K.,
PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
B.K.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Opinion
No. 20220051-CA
Filed February 9, 2023
Second District Juvenile Court, Farmington Department
The Honorable Sharon S. Sipes
No. 1176751
Scott L. Wiggins, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, John M. Peterson, and Candace
Roach, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER authored this Opinion,
in which JUDGE GREGORY K. ORME concurred. JUDGE RYAN M.
HARRIS concurred, with opinion.
CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:
¶1 This is a companion case to and arises out of the same facts involved in In re K.K., 2023 UT App 13, which also issues today. In short,[1] B.K. (Mother) and D.K. (Father) are the parents of triplets K.K., S.K., and S.K. (collectively, the Children). When the Children were six years old, the State filed a petition for custody and guardianship on the grounds that the Children were neglected and abused by Mother and Father. The underlying facts giving rise to the petition were multiple acts of domestic violence, culminating in a physical and boisterous verbal altercation between the couple that occurred on June 22, 2021, and that took place in front of the Children and other witnesses.
¶2 Following an adjudication trial on the petition, during which the juvenile court heard testimony from Mother, Father, two neighbors who had witnessed the June 22 altercation, and two police officers who had responded to the neighbors’ 911 calls regarding the June 22 altercation, the court issued an order adjudicating the Children neglected and abused as to Mother.
¶3 In the adjudication order, the court found, among other things, that Mother and Father had engaged in numerous acts of domestic violence, some of which had occurred in the presence of the Children, including on June 22; that when Mother and Father fight they sometimes send the Children downstairs to wait with a roommate, which had occurred two or three times that year; that the Children are aware they are sent downstairs because Mother and Father fight; that “[a]ccording to the [C]hildren, [Father] and [Mother] fight and yell and hurt each other’s bodies”; and that “[t]he [C]hildren have experienced domestic violence with enough frequency that they appear calm during incidents between their parents . . . even though the parents ‘fight a lot and hurt’ each other.”
¶4 As to Mother, the court found she was not yelling back at Father during the June 22 altercation but that she did yell at him on another occasion during which officers were dispatched to the house on a “domestic” call. In addition, the court found that Mother “is not concerned” that the Children witness her and Father fight and that her “demeanor and testimony”—including her inability to recall much of what happened on June 22—“is in tune with her desire to protect [Father] rather than address the domestic violence that exists in her home.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Mother “has failed to protect the [C]hildren from exposure to domestic violence in the home” and that “[Father] and [Mother’s] domestic violence in their home has harmed the[] [C]hildren.”
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶5 Mother now appeals the juvenile court’s neglect and abuse adjudications, asserting the court erred in determining that she neglected and abused the Children. We review the juvenile court’s factual findings deferentially, reversing the court’s findings only if they are clearly erroneous. In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 15, 496 P.3d 58. A finding is clearly erroneous when the court either “failed to consider all of the facts or reached a decision against the clear weight of the evidence.” Id. ¶ 32 (quotation simplified). And we review the juvenile court’s underlying legal determinations nondeferentially for correctness. See In re A.B., 2022 UT 39, ¶¶ 27–28.
ANALYSIS
¶6 Mother argues the juvenile court erred in determining that the State had proved by clear and convincing evidence that she neglected and abused the Children “by exposing them to domestic violence.” Clear and convincing evidence is an “intermediate standard of proof” that “implies something more than the usual requirement of a preponderance . . . of the evidence; and something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Essential Botanical Farms, LC v. Kay, 2011 UT 71, ¶¶ 21, 24, 270 P.3d 430 (quotation simplified). “For a matter to be clear and convincing to a particular mind it must at least have reached the point where there remains no serious or substantial doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion.” In re S.Y.T., 2011 UT App 407, ¶ 42, 267 P.3d 930 (quotation simplified).
¶7 Because neglect and abuse are distinct, with different statutory definitions, we address Mother’s challenge to the juvenile court’s adjudications separately. With regard to Mother’s neglect adjudication, we conclude the court did not err in determining that she neglected the Children. As to the court’s abuse adjudication, we conclude that Mother, like Father, cannot show prejudice resulting from the abuse adjudication where the underlying facts giving rise to both adjudications are the same. Accordingly, we decline to address the merits of Mother’s challenge to the abuse adjudication.
I. Neglect
¶8 To prove that Mother neglected the Children, the State needed to present clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s “action[s] or inaction[s]” caused the Children to experience a “lack of proper parental care . . . by reason of the fault or habits of” Mother or that Mother “fail[ed] or refus[ed] . . . to provide proper . . . care necessary for [the Children’s] health, safety, morals, or well-being.” See Utah Code § 80-1-102(58)(a)(ii)–(iii). Mother argues the juvenile court’s conclusion that she neglected the Children by “‘allowing’ them to be exposed to her abuse at Father’s hands” does not satisfy the statutory definition of neglect. She further contends that the court “engaged in unwarranted assumptions that are contrary to the well-settled notions underlying the Battered Woman Syndrome” by concluding that Mother’s “behavior constituted ‘nonaccidental’ conduct or that her behavior was due to her ‘faults or habits.’” We disagree.
¶9 The evidence presented at trial included testimony from six witnesses who detailed Father and Mother’s history of engaging in domestic disputes with each other and specifically described the altercation that occurred on June 22. The testimony indicated that two of the children were present during the June 22 altercation and were observed “clinging” to Mother outside in the front yard while Father argued with her, punched her, and threw objects at her. One of the officers who responded to the June 22 altercation testified that the two children who had witnessed the altercation “seemed calm” and were not “distraught or flustered at all.”[2] The officers acknowledged they had been called to Mother and Father’s house prior to the June 22 altercation on a “domestic” call after neighbors reported Mother and Father were screaming at each other.
¶10 Mother also testified that on many occasions she tried to prevent the Children from observing her and Father fight. To accomplish this, “as soon as any argument started” she would send the Children downstairs with her roommate, where they would wait until the fight was over. Despite making this effort, Mother testified that she believed the Children were aware they were sent downstairs to avoid hearing any fighting. Moreover, the evidence also showed that Mother repeatedly allowed Father to return home after the court issued a criminal no contact/protective order and that she minimized the severity of the domestic violence. Mother was also largely unwilling to testify at trial about the June 22 altercation, claiming that she had “trouble remembering” much of what happened. Based on this evidence, the juvenile court found, “[Mother] is not concerned that the [C]hildren are subjected to the argument[s] between [Mother] and [Father]. [Mother’s] demeanor and testimony is in tune with her desire to protect [Father] rather than address the domestic violence that exists in her home.”
¶11 As described above, in its adjudication order, the juvenile court made several findings in support of its determination of neglect as to Mother. Those findings address Mother’s ongoing relationship with Father and the violent dynamic of their relationship, Mother’s knowledge that the Children were aware of her fights with Father despite her attempts to shield them from the violence, and Mother’s apparent lack of concern or desire to extricate herself from future interactions with Father. Under Utah law, a parent “ha[s] a statutory duty not to knowingly place [their] child in harm’s way.” In re C.B., 1999 UT App 293, ¶ 9, 989 P.2d 76. By voluntarily returning to the abusive relationship with Father, Mother ignored this duty by “potentially subjecting the [Children] to witness, or be the victim of, further abuse.” See id. Moreover, as discussed in In re C.C.W., 2019 UT App 34, 440 P.3d 749, a parent’s act of domestic violence can have adverse impacts on a child, even if there is no evidence of violence toward the child and even if the child does not directly witness the violence. Relying on “both common sense and expert opinion,” this court recognized that children who are exposed to domestic violence may suffer “direct physical and psychological injuries,” regardless of whether they are physically harmed. Id. ¶¶ 20–21 (quotation simplified). Among other things, children who observe domestic violence “may be taught that violence is an acceptable way to handle issues with loved ones,” which “breeds a culture of violence in future generations. . . . Abused children are at great risk of becoming abusive parents.” Id. ¶ 20 (quotation simplified). Although it is unfortunate that Mother is a victim of domestic violence, her decision to knowingly return to Father and to protect him rather than to protect the Children despite her knowledge that the Children are aware of the abuse in the home satisfies the statutory definition of neglect.
¶12 We recognize that most, if not all, of the domestic violence at issue in this case was committed by Father against Mother and that Mother was therefore often the victim rather than the perpetrator. But under Utah’s statutory definition of neglect, under certain circumstances, even victims of domestic violence can “neglect” their children if they fail to take sufficient steps to protect them from the domestic violence present in the home or if they choose to prioritize their relationship with the perpetrator of the violence over the need to protect their children. After all, neglect can stem from either “action or inaction” on the part of a parent, see Utah Code § 80-1-102(58)(a), as long as the “inaction” in question causes either “lack of proper parental care of a child by reason of the fault or habits of the parent” or “failure or refusal of a parent . . . to provide . . . care necessary for the child’s health, safety, morals, or well-being,” see id. § 80-1-102(58)(a)(ii)–(iii). Here, the juvenile court found that Mother was “not concerned” about protecting the Children from domestic violence and that Mother had a “desire to protect [Father] rather than address the domestic violence that exists in her home.” These findings were supported by substantial evidence presented at trial. And these facts, as found by the court, constitute “neglect” as our legislature has defined that term. In short, Mother’s “inaction” in failing to protect the Children from exposure to domestic violence and prioritizing her toxic relationship with Father resulted in a failure to provide the “care necessary for [the Children’s] health, safety, morals, or well-being” and caused the Children to experience a “lack of proper parental care.” See id.
¶13 Mother resists this conclusion by contending the juvenile court improperly relied on In re C.C.W. for “the proposition that children are harmed by domestic violence in the home.” She asserts the court’s reliance on In re C.C.W. was unwarranted because that case concerned a proceeding to terminate parental rights whereas this case concerns abuse and neglect adjudications. While Mother is correct that the two proceedings are different, those differences do not bear on whether the court could properly rely on the research and studies cited in In re C.C.W. supporting the general proposition that domestic violence is harmful to children. See 2019 UT App 34, ¶ 20. Termination proceedings and abuse and neglect adjudications are both governed by the Utah Juvenile Code, see Utah Code § 80-4-301 (termination of parental rights); id. § 80-3-201 (abuse or neglect proceedings), and the statutory definitions of “neglect,” “abuse,” “harm,” and “threatened harm” are the same in both proceedings, see id. § 801-102(1), (37), (58)(a), (92) (providing definitions applicable to provisions of Title 80, Utah Juvenile Code). Accordingly, it does not follow that the court may properly consider the effect of domestic violence in finding neglect in one proceeding but not the other.
¶14 In addition, Mother asserts that the juvenile court “rel[ied] on the unfounded presumption that Mother’s decision to maintain a relationship with Father constituted a conscious failure to protect the Children from exposure to domestic violence.” In so doing, Mother posits that the juvenile court ignored the directive offered in In re C.C.W. cautioning courts “to avoid unnecessarily drawing negative inferences from a battered spouse’s decision to maintain a relationship with the batterer, or from a battered spouse’s decision to decline to immediately seek help.” See 2019 UT App 34, ¶ 19 n.4. But that is not what happened here.
¶15 In this case, the juvenile court analyzed the evidence before it in adjudicating Mother for neglect. Thus, the court’s conclusion was not based on an unfounded presumption. As previously discussed, the evidence the court considered included testimony that Father had engaged in multiple acts of domestic violence in the presence of the Children. And based on Father’s multi-year track record of assaulting Mother, even after services were provided to him, the court could reasonably conclude that Father is likely to continue perpetrating acts of domestic violence against Mother in the future and that the Children will continue to be exposed to the violence if Mother fails to take action. In short, the court’s determination that Mother failed to provide the proper care for the Children’s health, safety, morals, or well-being by failing to protect them and prioritizing her relationship with Father was based on the evidence presented at trial and not on an unwarranted presumption.
¶16 Finally, Mother misconstrues the directive offered in In re C.C.W. cautioning courts to “avoid unnecessarily drawing negative inferences from a battered spouse’s decision to maintain a relationship with the batterer.” See id. Mother contends that by adjudicating her for neglect, the juvenile court made an “automatic determination that both the batterer and victim are responsible as a unit,” which in turn results in the victim being blamed for the domestic violence. While we are sympathetic to Mother and acknowledge that extricating oneself from an abusive relationship can often prove difficult, see In re L.M., 2019 UT App 174, ¶ 9, 453 P.3d 651 (per curiam); In re C.C., 2017 UT App 134, ¶¶ 46–48, 402 P.3d 17 (Christiansen, J., concurring), we cannot say that a parent’s status as a domestic violence victim excuses the parent’s duty to protect the children or provides the parent with license to elevate the relationship with the abuser over the safety of the children. Indeed, the directive offered in In re C.C.W. merely cautions courts to “avoid unnecessarily drawing negative inferences” about a victim’s decision to stay in an abusive relationship. 2019 UT App 34, ¶ 19 n.4. It does not prevent the court from considering domestic violence issues in their entirety, nor does it provide absolution for a parent who continues to expose a child to domestic violence. To find otherwise would be contrary to precedent. See, e.g., In re L.M., 2019 UT App 174, ¶ 8 (“A parent who maintains a relationship with an abusive partner jeopardizes a child’s safety.”); In re T.M., 2006 UT App 435, ¶ 20, 147 P.3d 529 (collecting cases and observing that “Utah case law indicates that courts have minimal empathy for parents whose strong emotional ties to their spouses or significant others jeopardize their children’s safety”).
¶17 Accordingly, we affirm the court’s neglect adjudication.
II. Abuse
¶18 The juvenile court determined that Mother both neglected and abused the Children by failing to protect them from exposure to domestic violence and that Father and Mother’s “domestic violence in their home has harmed the[] [C]hildren.” Mother argues the court’s abuse adjudication was in error because the State failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of abuse as it is statutorily defined. See Utah Code § 80-1-102(1)(a)(i)(A)–(B), (37)(a)–(b) (defining abuse as including “nonaccidental harm of a child” and “threatened harm of a child” and defining harm as “physical or developmental injury or damage” and “emotional damage that results in a serious impairment in the child’s growth, development, behavior, or psychological functioning”). Mother raises a fair point that other than applying the general principles set forth in In re C.C.W. to infer harm, the State did not present specific evidence that the Children had sustained harm, and the court made no specific findings—other than that the Children appeared calm during incidents of domestic violence between their parents—that the Children were developmentally harmed or suffered the sort of emotional damage that constituted serious impairment to their growth, development, behavior, or psychological functioning.[3]
¶19 But even if we were to agree with Mother that the juvenile court erred in adjudicating the Children as abused as to Mother, Mother cannot show she was prejudiced by any such error. See In re N.M., 2018 UT App 141, ¶ 27, 427 P.3d 1239 (“An error is prejudicial only if a review of the record persuades the appellate court that without the error there was a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result for the appellant.” (quotation simplified)); In re. J.B., 2002 UT App 268, ¶¶ 8–12, 53 P.3d 968 (affirming the termination of a father’s parental rights despite the juvenile court’s reliance on improper findings because such reliance did not result in “prejudicial error”). Mother claims that being labeled an abuser “negatively affect[s] her ability—going forward—to perform the primary caretaking responsibilities to [the] Children.” But Mother does not demonstrate how the court’s abuse adjudication will affect her more severely or more negatively as this case proceeds than the neglect adjudication will. See In re G.B., 2022 UT App 98, ¶ 34, 516 P.3d 781 (declining to reach the merits of a challenge to an abuse adjudication where the parent did not challenge a neglect adjudication based on the same facts because the parent did not demonstrate that the abuse adjudication carried “some collateral consequences . . . that [did] not follow from a neglect determination”). Indeed, post-adjudication dispositions turn on the factual circumstances that bring a family into court rather than on the category of adjudication and are implemented based on concern for the child’s health and safety and remedying the underlying issues resulting in the adjudication. See Utah Code § 80-3-405. Here, as found by the juvenile court, whether her inaction is labeled as abuse or neglect, Mother failed to protect the Children from exposure to domestic violence and prioritized her relationship with Father over the well-being of the Children. The services that will be offered to Mother and the Children to remedy these circumstances are not likely to differ based on whether the adjudication is for neglect or abuse. We agree with the guardian ad litem’s assertion that “any or all three categories of adjudication (abuse, neglect, dependency) trigger the same dispositional provisions.” Accordingly, because Mother has not demonstrated how the court’s abuse adjudication will affect her any differently than the neglect adjudication, she cannot show prejudice.[4] See In re K.K., 2023 UT App 13, ¶ 28 (concluding, based on the same facts as the current case, that Father could not show prejudice stemming from the court’s abuse adjudication because the abuse adjudication was based on the same underlying facts supporting the neglect adjudication).
CONCLUSION
¶20 We are cognizant that Mother is a victim of domestic violence, not a perpetrator. Nevertheless, the primary purpose of the State’s petition alleging neglect was to protect the Children, not to punish Mother. Based on the foregoing, we conclude the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s neglect adjudication as to Mother. And even if the juvenile court erred in its abuse adjudication, Mother has not persuaded us that she was prejudiced by any such error because she has not shown how she will be negatively affected by the abuse adjudication over and above the effect of her neglect adjudication. Accordingly, we affirm.
_____________
HARRIS, Judge (concurring):
¶21 I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately to offer a word of caution to juvenile courts when it comes to finding that a parent who is a victim of domestic violence has “abused” or “neglected” his or her children by allowing them to be exposed to domestic violence in the home. In my view, Utah’s statutory definitions of the terms “abuse” and “neglect” are broad enough to make it possible, in certain situations, for courts to determine that a domestic violence victim has committed abuse or neglect. But courts should exercise caution in doing so, and should make these rather striking findings only in appropriate cases.
¶22 With regard to neglect, we hold today that the juvenile court’s determination was appropriate in this case, because Mother’s “inaction” in failing to protect the Children from the domestic violence occurring in the home constituted a lack of proper parental care, as well as a failure to provide care necessary for the Children’s health, safety, or well-being. See supra ¶¶ 8–16; see also Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-102(58)(a)(ii)–(iii) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). In my view, the key to affirming this determination, in this case, was the court’s finding that Mother had prioritized her relationship with her abuser over the safety and well-being of the Children. Evidence presented at trial indicated that Mother repeatedly allowed Father to return to the home despite the existence of protective orders making it unlawful for him to be there, and that she was less than fully cooperative with DCFS and law enforcement officials who were investigating the situation. This sort of evidence, to my way of thinking, is critical to any determination that a domestic violence victim has neglected his or her children. Absent evidence like this, domestic violence victims will likely not have committed actions or inactions significant enough to constitute “neglect” of their children.
¶23 And given the differing statutory definitions, it is even more difficult for domestic violence victims to be considered to have “abused” their children than it is for them to be considered to have “neglected” their children. The statutory definition of “abuse” is (justifiably) narrower than the statutory definition of “neglect.” In order to find that abuse has occurred, a court in most cases (that is, in cases not involving sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, human trafficking, or the child’s death) must find either (a) “nonaccidental harm of a child” or (b) “threatened harm of a child.” See id. § 80-1-102(1)(a)(i)(A), (B); see also In re K.T., 2017 UT 44, ¶ 9, 424 P.3d 91 (“To find abuse under Utah law, a court must find harm.”).
¶24 A finding that a child has sustained nonaccidental harm involves a backward-looking determination, one that must be supported by evidence that the child has already been harmed. And the kind of harm at issue—according to strict statutory definition—must be either “physical or developmental injury or damage” or the sort of “emotional damage that results in a serious impairment in the child’s growth, development, behavior, or psychological functioning.” See id. § 80-1-102(37)(a), (b). I can envision a court, in many cases, being able to make a finding of physical harm without the necessity of expert testimony, but in my view a finding of already-sustained “developmental injury or damage” or emotional damage severe enough to cause “a serious impairment in the child’s growth, development, behavior, or psychological functioning” will often require expert testimony. I think this will nearly always be the case where the question presented is whether a child has already sustained non-physical “harm” as a result of a victim parent failing to protect the child from violence in the home.
¶25 A finding that a child has sustained “threatened harm” is— by contrast—more of a forward-looking inquiry, under the applicable statutory definition. As our legislature has defined it in this context, “threatened harm means actions, inactions, or credible verbal threats, indicating that the child is at an unreasonable risk of harm or neglect.” See Utah Code Ann. § 80-1102(92) (emphasis added). A child can sustain “threatened harm” even if the child has not yet sustained actual “harm.” Pursuant to statutory definition, a child sustains “threatened harm” when, through the “actions” or “inactions” of a parent, the child is placed at “unreasonable risk” of future “developmental injury or damage” or “emotional damage” severe enough to seriously impair the “child’s growth, development, behavior, or psychological functioning.” See id. § 80-1-102(37)(a)–(b), 102(92). In cases involving parents who are victims of domestic violence, a juvenile court could perhaps more easily make a finding of “threatened harm” than already-sustained past harm. Indeed, we have already recognized that “domestic violence can have adverse impacts on a child, even if that child is not the direct object of such violence, and even if the child does not directly witness the violence.” See In re C.C.W., 2019 UT App 34, ¶ 20, 440 P.3d 749. A parent victim’s failure to adequately protect a child from violence in the home could—if the violence was frequent and severe enough, and likely to continue in the future—lead to a supported finding that the parent, through inaction, has placed the child at an unreasonable risk of future developmental damage. It may even be possible, in appropriate cases, for such a finding to be made without expert testimony.
¶26 But in order to reach “abuse” through “threatened harm” in cases involving victims of domestic violence, a court must make specific and supported findings regarding each of the elements of the statutory definition. First, a court must specify that it is finding “abuse” by way of “threatened harm” (as opposed to through a finding of already-sustained “nonaccidental harm”). Second, the court must make a detailed finding of threatened harm on the facts of the case at hand, including specific identification of the “action or inaction” taken by the parent that leads to the “unreasonable risk” of future harm, as well as a satisfactory explanation of why the risk of future harm is “unreasonable.” Third, the court must specify the type of future harm it believes the child is at risk of sustaining, whether it be developmental injury or severe emotional damage, and should explain—with reference to specific evidence in the record—why the court believes the child is likely to sustain that particular type of harm.
¶27 In short, Utah’s statutory definitions of “neglect” and “abuse” are broad enough to allow courts, in appropriate cases, to find that a parent who is the victim of domestic violence has committed neglect or abuse by failing to protect his or her child from domestic violence in the home. But courts should exercise caution in so doing, and should reserve such findings for those cases in which the domestic violence is severe and sustained and in which the victim parent has taken specific actions or inactions aimed at prioritizing his or her relationship with the abuser over care and protection of the children.
¶28 In this case, I concur in the majority’s view that the court made appropriate findings of neglect with regard to Mother. I also concur in the majority’s decision not to reach the merits of the propriety of the court’s findings regarding abuse as to Mother, but I register serious reservations about the adequacy and sufficiency of those findings, and urge courts to exercise caution in making neglect and abuse determinations in situations like this one.
______________
[1] A more fulsome description of the relevant facts and procedural history can be found in In re K.K., 2023 UT App 13, the case in which we adjudicated Father’s appeal. In this case, we adjudicate Mother’s appeal.
[2] The juvenile court did not take this evidence to mean that the Children had not been adversely affected by their parents’ inappropriate behavior. Rather, the inference drawn by the court was that the parental conflict had been so pervasive that the Children had become somewhat numb to it.
[3] We do not intend to suggest the State could never demonstrate that a parent who is the victim of domestic violence has “abused” his or her children, as that term is statutorily defined. We agree with the general sentiments expressed in the concurring opinion that such a path is possible but is more difficult than demonstrating “neglect” and would require specific evidence and findings. See infra ¶¶ 22–27.
[4] In fact, a review of the underlying docket in Mother’s case reveals that Mother and the Children have done so well in their treatment and services that the juvenile court released the Children from DCFS’s protective supervision and terminated the court’s jurisdiction last fall.
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF K.K., S.K., AND S.K.,
PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
D.K.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Opinion
No. 20220050-CA
Filed February 9, 2023
Second District Juvenile Court, Farmington Department
The Honorable Sharon S. Sipes
No. 1176751
Freyja Johnson, Emily Adams, and Hannah K.
Leavitt-Howell, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, John M. Peterson, and Candace
Roach, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and RYAN M. HARRIS
concurred.
CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:
¶1 D.K. (Father) and B.K. (Mother) are the parents of triplets K.K., S.K., and S.K. (collectively, the Children). When the Children were six years old, the State filed a child welfare petition for custody and guardianship on the grounds that the Children were neglected and abused by Father and Mother. Following an adjudication hearing on the petition, the juvenile court issued an order adjudicating the Children as neglected and abused.
¶2 Father now appeals the juvenile court’s abuse adjudication, arguing that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he abused the Children. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶3 In 2019, when the Children were four years old, the State filed a petition seeking protective supervision services based on allegations that Father and Mother had engaged in repeated acts of domestic violence in front of the Children. Thereafter, Father and Mother agreed to engage in services voluntarily, and the State eventually dismissed its petition.
¶4 Two years later, however, Father and Mother again engaged in a series of domestic violence incidents that involved law enforcement. In May 2021, Father called the police and told them that Mother had “beat him up.” When officers arrived on scene and talked to Father, he told them he and Mother were “fighting about money” and that Mother “swung to hit him but never touched him.” On June 10, officers were again dispatched to the family home on a “domestic” call because Father and Mother were “screaming at each other with the [C]hildren in the home.” When officers arrived, they could hear the screaming. Father was uncooperative with the officers, but he eventually left the home. However, Father returned to the home later that same night.
¶5 On June 22, Father and Mother were involved in an altercation that led the State to seek custody and guardianship of the Children. During this altercation, Father and Mother were arguing inside the home. Mother was sitting on the couch, and Father sat on top of her demanding that she give him the keys to the car. Father then “head butted” Mother and told her to get out of the home, which she did. Once Mother was outside, Father followed her and began punching her “with a closed fist on the side of her stomach.” Father proceeded to grab a large rock and chase Mother around the car, “acting like he was going to throw the rock at her.” The Children were outside of the home for the duration of the altercation and witnessed Father chasing Mother and hitting her. Several neighbors also witnessed the altercation and called the police. When officers arrived, Father was arrested and taken to jail.
¶6 After Father’s arrest, Mother completed a lethality assessment, an evaluation given to assess the level of danger an abused person faces, which resulted in a score of high risk. Mother did not seek a protective order for herself or for the Children during the eight days Father was in jail. However, due to the severity of the prior altercation, the district court entered a criminal no contact/protective order on July 1. The order prohibited Father from residing with Mother and the Children.
¶7 On July 8, a caseworker from the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) went to the home for an unannounced visit. During the visit, the caseworker found Father outside; Father reported that Mother was inside sleeping. Father allowed the caseworker to interview the Children. During the interview, the Children reported that Father and Mother “fight and yell” and “hurt each other’s bodies.” Father was subsequently arrested for violation of the criminal no contact/protective order. Thereafter, the caseworker attempted to talk to Mother, who had been inside sleeping, but Mother refused to speak with the caseworker.
¶8 Based on the foregoing, the State filed a petition for custody and guardianship of the Children on the grounds that they were neglected and abused based on Father and Mother engaging in domestic violence in the home. Following a shelter hearing, the juvenile court determined the Children should remain in Mother’s custody for the time being but ordered Mother and the Children to have “absolutely no contact” with Father and that Mother “immediately notify law enforcement” if Father appeared at the home.
¶9 Following a series of pretrial hearings, the matter proceeded to an adjudication trial in December 2021. At trial, the State presented the testimony of six witnesses: Mother, Father, two neighbors who had witnessed the June 22 altercation, and two police officers who had responded to the neighbors’ 911 calls regarding the June 22 altercation.
¶10 According to the neighbors, Father and Mother were arguing about car keys. As Father approached Mother, “she put her arms out to stop him . . . and he slapped her hands aside.” Father then began punching Mother “haymaker style” to her side and stomach. The punching continued “for a minute or two,” and Father connected “five to ten” times. After the punching stopped, Father chased Mother around the front yard, “throwing rocks” and “bikes and other toys” in the direction of Mother, although the neighbors did not see any of the objects hit Mother.
¶11 The neighbors testified that during the altercation, two of the Children were in the front yard “standing behind [Mother]” and “clinging” to her. Mother was positioned between Father and the two children, acting as a “buffer” between them. One neighbor opined that he did not “believe any [of Father’s] aggression was towards the children,” and that “at no[] point did [he] think [the two children] were in any sort of danger.” However, the two children were outside the entire time, “seeing everything.”
¶12 In addition, one neighbor testified that she had witnessed Father and Mother “screaming” at each other multiple times in the presence of the Children prior to the June 22 altercation. Moreover, the neighbor had witnessed Father yelling at the Children twice and had observed that the Children “are terrified and trying to do whatever [Father] says to not be in trouble.”
¶13 The responding officers testified next. One officer testified that after arriving at the scene on June 22, he interviewed Mother, who told him that she had been arguing with Father over car keys. During the argument, Father “sat down on her” to keep her from leaving, headbutted her in the forehead, and “punched her in the back of the leg.” After Mother jumped out the window to the front yard, Father followed her and the two continued arguing. Father chased Mother around a vehicle parked in the front yard; once he caught her, he began “punching her in the side underneath her arms with a closed fist.” Mother was able to break away, but Father chased her with a rock in his hands. Mother told the officer the Children were outside with her during the altercation.
¶14 The officer also interviewed Father about the altercation. Father said he was “upset” because Mother hid the car keys from him but that “nothing got physical.” Father told the officer he and Mother had argued and run around the vehicle in the front yard. Father indicated that he had picked up a rock and held it over his head, but he did not throw it, nor did he intend to.
¶15 Lastly, the officer testified regarding his observations of the Children. When the officer arrived at the scene, the Children were inside the house. The officer interviewed Mother while she was standing at the front door. During the interview, the officer saw “at least two” of the Children standing by the front door behind Mother and “one of the kids popped his head outside” and asked for stickers. Officer opined that the Children’s demeanor “seemed calm.” The Children seemed “a little upset that some toys were . . . strewn about the front yard,” but otherwise they did not seem “distraught or flustered” by the altercation.
¶16 Mother testified that the June 22 incident started when she refused to give Father the keys to the car. Mother explained that she could not remember all the details about the altercation because she has “trouble remembering things.” However, she did remember that the altercation began when Father headbutted her in the house. After the headbutt, Father and Mother went outside to the front yard. Although Mother did not remember whether Father hit her in the yard, she recalled that he “didn’t follow [her] around the yard,” that he picked up a basket and “threw it up in the air” but not “at” her, and that he “picked up a rock” but did not chase her while holding it. Mother maintained that the Children had not observed the altercation because they were downstairs inside the house with a roommate where they stayed until the officers arrived.
¶17 Mother also testified that the Children “were never present for full on arguments or yelling.” She explained that “as soon as any argument started,” her roommate would take the Children downstairs so they would not be able to hear the fighting. Although Mother did not believe the Children had been impacted by the fighting, she did believe the Children were aware that they were sent downstairs to avoid hearing any fighting.
¶18 Father testified last. When asked about the June 22 altercation he invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify because criminal charges were pending against him regarding that incident. But Father explained that “before” he and Mother would engage in any verbal arguments, the Children would go downstairs.
¶19 After considering all the evidence, the juvenile court issued an adjudication order. In the order the court found, among other things, that Father and Mother had engaged in numerous acts of domestic violence, some of which had occurred in the presence of the Children, including the one on June 22; that when Father and Mother fight they sometimes send the Children downstairs to wait with a roommate, which had occurred two or three times that year; that the Children are aware that they are sent downstairs because Father and Mother fight; that “[a]ccording to the [C]hildren, [Father] and [Mother] fight and yell and hurt each other’s bodies”; and that “[t]he [C]hildren have experienced domestic violence with enough frequency that they appear calm during incidents between their parents . . . even though the parents ‘fight a lot and hurt’ each other.”
¶20 As to Father, the court drew a number of adverse inferences based on his decision to invoke his constitutional right to silence when asked specific questions about the June 22 altercation. And as to Mother, the court found that she “is not concerned” about the Children witnessing her and Father fighting and that her “demeanor and testimony”—including her inability to recall much of what happened on June 22—“is in tune with her desire to protect [Father] rather than address the domestic violence that exists in her home.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Father “failed to provide proper care necessary for the health, safety, morals and well-being of the children in that he has engaged in domestic violence with [Mother], and [both Father and Mother] failed to protect the [C]hildren from exposure to domestic violence in the home.” The court also concluded that “[Father] and [Mother’s] domestic violence in their home has harmed [the Children]” and, accordingly, adjudicated the Children as neglected and abused as to Father.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶21 Father now appeals only the juvenile court’s abuse adjudication, arguing that the court’s ruling was in error because the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had harmed or threatened harm to the Children. “We apply differing standards of review to findings of fact, conclusions of law, and determinations of mixed questions of law and fact.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 14, 496 P.3d 58. We review the juvenile court’s factual findings deferentially, reversing the court’s findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. ¶ 15. A finding is clearly erroneous when the court either “failed to consider all of the facts or reached a decision against the clear weight of the evidence.” Id. ¶ 32 (quotation simplified). However, the question of whether the juvenile court properly applied the governing law to the facts of the case presents “a law-like mixed question subject to nondeferential review.” In re A.B., 2022 UT 39, ¶ 27.
ANALYSIS
¶22 At an adjudication trial, the juvenile court must determine whether “the allegations contained in the abuse, neglect, or dependency petition are true” by “clear and convincing evidence.” Utah Code § 80-3-402(1). Clear and convincing evidence is an “intermediate standard of proof” that “implies something more than the usual requirement of a preponderance . . . of the evidence; and something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Essential Botanical Farms, LC v. Kay, 2011 UT 71, ¶¶ 21, 24, 270 P.3d 430 (quotation simplified). Put differently, this standard requires “the existence of facts that make a conclusion very highly probable.” Id. ¶ 24 (quotation simplified).
¶23 As relevant here, “abuse” is defined as the “nonaccidental harm of a child” or the “threatened harm of a child.” Utah Code § 80-1-102(1)(a)(i)(A), (B). Thus, “[t]o find abuse under Utah law, a court must find harm.” In re K.T., 2017 UT 44, ¶ 9, 424 P.3d 91. “Harm” includes “physical or developmental injury or damage” and “emotional damage that results in a serious impairment in the child’s growth, development, behavior, or psychological functioning.” Utah Code § 80-1-102(37)(a), (b). And “[t]hreatened harm” is defined as “actions, inactions, or credible verbal threats, indicating that the child is at an unreasonable risk of harm or neglect.” Id. § 80-1-102(92).
¶24 As applied to this case, to satisfy the clear and convincing standard, the State “needed to present evidence that would allow the [juvenile] court to conclude that it was very highly probable that the [C]hildren had been harmed.” See In re K.T., 2017 UT 44, ¶ 9 n.3 (quotation simplified). In reaching this conclusion the court may properly “infer harm” based on the evidence presented. Id. ¶ 14. However, the court may not “speculate” about the existence of harm absent clear and convincing evidence demonstrating the actions actually resulted in harm. Id. ¶¶ 14–17.
¶25 After considering the evidence presented during the adjudication trial, the juvenile court concluded the Children were abused because “[Father] and [Mother’s] domestic violence in their home has harmed [the Children].” Father argues the court’s conclusion was in error because the State failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that he physically harmed the Children or that the Children were developmentally harmed or emotionally damaged by observing Father assault Mother and Father and Mother argue. But even if we were to agree with Father that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Father harmed the Children and were to agree that the juvenile court erred in adjudicating Father as abusing the Children, Father has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the alleged error. See In re N.M., 2018 UT App 141, ¶ 27, 427 P.3d 1239 (“An error is prejudicial only if a review of the record persuades the appellate court that without the error there was a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result for the appellant.” (quotation simplified)); In re. J.B., 2002 UT App 268, ¶¶ 8–12, 53 P.3d 968 (affirming the termination of a father’s parental rights despite the juvenile court’s reliance on improper findings because such reliance did not result in “prejudicial error”). As noted above, the court adjudicated the Children as both neglected and abused, and Father appeals only the court’s abuse adjudication. Although Father is correct that “[a]buse and neglect are statutorily defined and given ‘distinct statuses’” and that “[u]nder the statutory definitions . . . abuse requires a higher level of improper conduct from a parent than neglect,” that distinction has no bearing in this case—and Father has not shown that it is likely to have any bearing in the future—because the court’s adjudications of neglect and abuse were based on the same underlying incidents of domestic violence.
¶26 When a juvenile court adjudicates a child as either neglected or abused, that determination brings the child within the jurisdiction of the court and allows the court to enter dispositional orders. See Utah Code § 80-3-402. The dispositions available to the court do not hinge on whether the child was adjudicated as neglected or abused. Instead, dispositions are tied to the factual findings about what is going on in the case and are implemented based on concern for the child’s health and safety and remedying the underlying issues resulting in the adjudication. See id. § 80-3-405.
¶27 Here, the juvenile court’s disposition is governed by the need to address Father’s commission of domestic violence in the presence of the Children and the risk such behavior will continue. Services to address this behavior will not differ whether the underlying adjudication is labeled as neglect or abuse because the court’s neglect determination was based on the same underlying facts as the abuse determination: here, Father’s failure to protect and to provide proper care for the Children as a result of his engaging in acts of domestic violence.[1]
¶28 Father cites this court’s decision in In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, 473 P.3d 184, for the proposition that Father was harmed by the court’s abuse adjudication, asserting that the findings of abuse in the adjudication order “will form the basis for whether [Father] is able to comply with the requirements of [any service plan] going forward and whether [Father] can be reunited with the Children.” See id. ¶ 28. But unlike the mother in In re C.M.R., who was potentially prejudiced by entering admissions to allegations regarding a specific additional incident of abuse at the adjudication hearing, Father’s abuse adjudication was based on the exact same underlying set of facts as his neglect adjudication. In this case, Father has not challenged the juvenile court’s neglect adjudication, nor has he challenged the court’s underlying factual findings—which support both the neglect and the abuse adjudications—that he assaulted Mother in the presence of the Children and repeatedly engaged in heated verbal arguments with her. Those underlying actions, which form the foundation for both adjudications, are the reason why he “can only have supervised visitation with [the] Children” and why “[h]e is not allowed in the home,” and not because the court adjudicated the Children as abused in addition to neglected. Because Father has not challenged the neglect adjudication or demonstrated how the ramifications flowing from this unchallenged adjudication would be less severe than those resulting from an abuse adjudication, he has not demonstrated that he has sustained any prejudice as a result of the court’s abuse adjudication.[2] See In re G.B., 2022 UT App 98, ¶ 34, 516 P.3d 781 (declining to reach the merits of a challenge to an abuse adjudication where the parent did not challenge a neglect adjudication based on the same facts because the parent did not demonstrate that the abuse adjudication carried “some collateral consequences . . . that [did] not follow from a neglect determination”).
CONCLUSION
¶29 On appeal, Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s findings that he committed domestic violence in the presence of the Children or that those actions resulted in him neglecting the Children by failing to provide them proper care and to protect them from exposure to domestic violence. Under these circumstances, even if the juvenile court erred in its separate abuse adjudication—a conclusion we stop short of reaching—Father has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by any such error because he has not challenged the court’s neglect adjudication or the facts underlying it, which are the same facts underlying the court’s abuse adjudication, and any court-ordered disposition will be based upon Father’s own acts and not the adjudication of abuse.
¶30 Affirmed.
______________
[1] In his reply brief Father argues he was harmed by the juvenile court’s abuse adjudication because “an abuse adjudication goes into a central abuse registry system managed by DCFS” and “the information in that registry is used for licensing purposes and prevents individuals who have been adjudicated of abuse from holding licenses in certain professions.” But this argument misses the mark. While Father correctly notes that the abuse registry system—called the Management Information System (the MIS)— can be accessed by the State for all future cases involving Father, see Utah Code § 80-2-1001, he conflates the MIS with a “sub-part” of the MIS called the Licensing Information System (the LIS), see id. § 80-2-1002(1)(a)(i). Information on the MIS includes facts relevant to each child welfare case, whereas the LIS is maintained for “licensing purposes.” See id. § 80-2-1002(1)(a)(i). Although an individual on the LIS may be prohibited from, among other things, holding licenses in certain professions, see id. § 80-2-708(2)(a)(v), inclusion on the LIS is not automatic in every child welfare case. Rather, the LIS identifies only individuals found to have committed a “severe type of child abuse or neglect.” See id. § 80-2-708(1). Because the court did not adjudicate Father as severely abusing the Children, inclusion on the LIS does not automatically follow, and Father has not asserted that he has been—or is likely to be—included therein. Accordingly, Father has not demonstrated that, in this case, he has sustained any prejudice as a result of the juvenile court’s abuse determination.
[2] Indeed, in the juvenile court’s dispositional order, entered approximately two months after the adjudication order, Father’s primary responsibility is to “complete a domestic violence/mental health assessment . . . and follow any and all of the recommendations made.”
A.H., J.H., J.H., L.H., N.H., S.H., AND E.H., PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
N.J.H. AND S.H., Appellants, v. STATE OF UTAH, Appellee.
Opinion
Nos. 20210353-CA and
20210354-CA
Filed October 6, 2022
Fourth District Juvenile Court, Provo Department
The Honorable Suchada P. Bazzelle No. 1145453
Alexandra Mareschal, Attorney for Appellant N.J.H.
Kirstin H. Norman, Attorney for Appellant S.H.
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M.
Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE RYA N M. HARRIS authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGE DAVID N. MORTENSEN and SENIOR JUDGE KATE APPLEBY concurred.[1]
HARRIS, Judge:
¶1 After a bench trial, the juvenile court terminated S.H.’s (Mother) and N.J.H.’s (Father) (collectively, Parents) parental rights regarding the two youngest of their seven children: A.H. and L.H. (the Subject Children). The court did not terminate Parents’ rights regarding their other five children; it accepted the parties’ stipulation that the best interest of those children would be served by placing them in a guardianship with relatives. But despite those same relatives being willing to take and care for (by either adoption or guardianship) the Subject Children as well, the court determined that the Subject Children’s best interest would be served by termination of Parents’ rights and adoption by their foster parents. In separate appeals that we consider together in this opinion, Parents challenge that decision, asserting that termination of their rights was neither strictly necessary nor in the best interest of the Subject Children. We agree and reverse.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Mother and Father are the parents of seven children (the Children), each born approximately two years apart. The eldest (E.H.) was born in 2005, and the two youngest (A.H. and L.H.) were born in February 2015 and December 2016, respectively. Mother is the biological parent of all seven of the Children. Father is the biological parent of the six youngest Children and the legal parent of all of them; he adopted E.H. when E.H. was an infant. Mother and Father met in New Mexico, which is where the parents of E.H.’s biological father (Grandparents) live.[2] Parents moved to Utah, with the Children then born, in 2007.
¶3 Over the years, Grandparents developed a close relationship not only with E.H.—their biological grandson—but with the other Children as well. They made trips to Utah on at least an annual basis during which they spent time with the Children, and they engaged in regular telephonic contact as well. After L.H. was born in 2016, he required a lengthy stay in the newborn intensive care unit, and Grandmother took three weeks off from her job as a nurse to come to Utah and help.
¶4 In June 2017, the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition for protective supervision, asserting that Father had physically abused N.H., one of the older sons, and that L.H.—who was then just a few months old—was malnourished and failing to thrive. DCFS’s plan, at that point, was to leave the Children in the home and provide supportive services. After adjudicating N.H. abused as to Father and the other Children neglected as to Father, the juvenile court granted DCFS’s requested relief and ordered that Father have only supervised contact with the Children. For the time being, the Children remained in the home under Mother’s care.
¶5 In August 2017, however, DCFS filed a petition seeking custody of the Children, citing not only the issues raised in its previous petition but also a more recent incident involving Mother and L.H. In response to a report of reckless driving, police found Mother slumped over the steering wheel of her parked car with L.H. in the backseat, and a search of the vehicle turned up several prescription medications in a container not intended for prescriptions, as well as a red straw with “white powder” inside it. Police arrested Mother on suspicion of, among other things, impaired driving; she was later able to provide prescriptions for all the medications found in the car.
¶6 After a hearing, the court granted DCFS’s requested relief and placed the Children in the temporary custody of DCFS. The Children were removed from Mother’s care later that same day and, when caseworkers went to the home to effectuate the court’s order, they observed Mother “wobbling back and forth” and having “a hard time keeping her eyes open.” Initially, DCFS caseworkers—with Mother’s agreement—arranged a safety plan in which Mother would leave the home and the Children would stay there, in their familiar environment, cared for by Mother’s brother. But Mother knowingly failed to follow that plan, and returned to the home without permission two days later. As a result of Mother’s actions, DCFS removed the Children from the home and placed them in a group home for children.
¶7 But that placement was temporary, and DCFS eventually needed to move the Children to foster care placements. But because no available foster care placement could accommodate all seven Children, DCFS found it necessary to split the Children up into three different placements. The oldest two were placed in one foster home, the next three in a second, and the Subject Children in a third. Three months later, the oldest two were placed with a paternal aunt. For almost a year, the seven Children were separated into these three groups, and the different groups saw each other only during Parents’ supervised parent-time; they were sometimes permitted to call each other, but DCFS did not facilitate any in-person sibling visitation during this period.
¶8 At later hearings, the juvenile court adjudicated the children neglected as to Mother. The court noted L.H.’s “failure to thrive” and the incident involving the parked car, as well as Mother’s criminal history—which involved both drug crimes and retail theft—and her “history of mental health issues that [could] place the [C]hildren at risk of harm.” Despite these concerns, however, the goal remained reunification and, over the ensuing months, Parents complied with the court’s direction well enough that, by July 2018, the family was able to reunify in the home. For the next nine months, the family was together—for the most part[3]—and doing reasonably well, and DCFS anticipated that it might be able to close the case in the spring of 2019. But three events occurred in early 2019 that prompted DCFS to reconsider.
¶9 First, in March 2019, Father injured two of the older Children, and DCFS made a supported finding of physical abuse by Father. In the wake of this incident, and in an effort to avoid a second removal of the Children from the home, Father agreed to move out and to have only supervised visits with the Children. When caseworkers visited the home following Father’s departure, they became concerned about Mother’s ability to care for the Children on her own; in particular, caseworkers observed several incidents in which Mother left the younger Children unattended.
¶10 Second, in late April 2019, police were called to the home at 1:54 a.m. and found L.H., then just two years old, alone in the family car, which was parked in front of the house. Mother explained that she had been out shopping, gotten home late, and then taken a phone call while L.H. was still out in the car asleep.
¶11 Third, in early May 2019, Mother had an encounter with police while in her car at a fast-food restaurant. Officers observed Mother responding quietly and slowly to questions, and they discovered in the car a plastic bag and an unlabeled prescription bottle containing pills later identified as controlled substances. In addition, officers found a razor blade with white residue and a rolled-up dollar bill in the vehicle, evidence that suggested Mother had been misusing the drugs. Mother passed a field sobriety test, and officers later determined that she had valid prescriptions for the pills.
¶12 Following these incidents, DCFS filed a new petition, again seeking to remove the Children from the home and place them in state custody. The juvenile court again adjudicated the Children abused and neglected as to each Parent, and again placed them into the custody of DCFS. The Children were extremely emotional when they learned of the court’s order removing them from the home for a second time; in fact, officials even had to use physical force to restrain two of the older sons when the time came to take them into custody. This time, the seven Children were sent to four placements: one of the older sons was placed in a short-term behavioral health facility because of his aggressive behavior during the removal; two of the older sons were placed together; and the two next-oldest sons and the Subject Children were returned to their respective previous foster placements. Just a few weeks later, six of the Children—all but the oldest—were placed together with a single foster family in a different county, but this short reunion lasted only about two months.
¶13 In August 2019, with the school year approaching, Parents requested that the Children be returned to Utah County, a request that again required the Children to be split up. This time, the two oldest were placed together; the next three were placed together in a new placement; and the Subject Children were—for the first time—placed with the family (the Foster Family) who now wishes to adopt them.[4] The Subject Children bonded very quickly with Foster Family, calling the parents “mom and dad” within just a few weeks of being placed with them. Still, the primary goal remained reunification, and the court ordered additional reunification services. However, DCFS still did not facilitate any sibling visitation, but “left that mostly up to [the] foster parents.” Although the foster families initially managed “a few meet-ups on their own,” these efforts diminished over time, despite the absence of any indication that the Children—including the Subject Children—did not want to see each other.
¶14 At a court hearing in July 2019, shortly after the second removal, Mother’s attorney requested that Grandparents—who were and remain willing to take all seven of the Children—be considered as a possible placement. The court was open to this suggestion but, because Grandparents reside in New Mexico, the court ordered DCFS to “initiate an ICPC[5] as to” Grandparents. But DCFS delayed acting upon the court’s order for nearly four months, until late October 2019. DCFS attributed the delay, in part, to inadvertence related to a caseworker switch that was occurring right then, but the new caseworker later testified that her “understanding” of the situation was that DCFS “made a decision not to proceed” with the ICPC process “because reunification services were still being offered.” Owing at least in part to the four-month delay in getting it started, the ICPC report was still not completed by the beginning of the eventual termination trial in October 2020. On the third day of trial, a DCFS witness explained that New Mexico had just finished its end of the process and had given its “approval” the day before, and that DCFS had filled out its final form the night before.
¶15 The ICPC report, when it was finally completed, raised no concerns with regard to Grandparents, and concluded that their home would be an appropriate placement for the Children. Indeed, one of the DCFS caseworkers testified at trial that she had “no concerns directly about [Grandparents] and their ability to be a safe home.” But none of the Children were actually placed with Grandparents until October 2020, due in large part to the delays associated with completion of the ICPC report.
¶16 For several months following the second removal of the Children from the home, the primary permanency goal remained reunification, and DCFS continued to provide reunification services to the family. But in the fall of 2019, after yet another substance use incident involving Mother, DCFS became dissatisfied with Parents’ progress and asked the court to change the primary permanency goal. At a hearing held at the end of October 2019, the court agreed, terminated reunification services, and changed the primary permanency goal to adoption with a concurrent goal of permanent custody and guardianship. A few weeks later, the State filed a petition seeking the termination of Parents’ rights with regard to all seven Children.
¶17 The court originally scheduled the termination trial to occur at the end of February 2020, but the State requested a continuance because it was working on placing the Children with Grandparents, was waiting for the ICPC report, and wanted “to ensure [that] the Grandparents kn[ew] what they [were] getting into.” The court granted the State’s requested continuance and rescheduled the trial for the end of March 2020. On March 12— the day before all “non-essential” court hearings in Utah were postponed by administrative order[6] due to the emerging COVID19 pandemic—all parties filed a stipulated motion asking that the trial be postponed yet again because there was “an ICPC request pending approval” and it was “highly anticipated by all parties that the results of the ICPC [would] resolve all issues pending before the Court.” The court granted the stipulated motion and continued the trial, but did so without date because the termination trial was deemed “to be a non-essential hearing.” Eventually, after the COVID-related administrative order was amended to allow some non-essential hearings to go forward, the court rescheduled the trial for October 2020, to take place via videoconference.
¶18 In the meantime, despite the fact that the ICPC report was not yet completed, the five oldest Children visited Grandparents in New Mexico for several weeks during the summer of 2020. DCFS did not allow the Subject Children to participate in that visit, not based on any concern about Grandparents’ ability to provide appropriate care for them, but because caseworkers believed that such a lengthy visit away from Foster Family would be “scary and upsetting” to the Subject Children.
¶19 During this time, the parties and their attorneys were preparing for trial. From the beginning of the case, Parents had each been provided with a court-appointed lawyer (collectively, Appointed Counsel) to represent them. But toward the end of July 2020, Parents asked a private lawyer (Private Counsel) to represent them at trial.[7] Private Counsel agreed, and Parents paid him a retainer. Parents informed Private Counsel of upcoming pretrial disclosure deadlines, and even gave him a list of fifteen witnesses Parents wanted to call at trial; Private Counsel told them that he would file the appropriate documents and that they did not need to contact their Appointed Counsel. Eventually, Parents discovered that no pretrial disclosures had been made and no motions for extensions of the deadlines had been filed.
¶20 The trial was finally held in October 2020. The first day was spent solely trying to clear up confusion about who was representing Parents. Appointed Counsel appeared for trial, but they indicated that they were unprepared to proceed given the lack of communication from Parents over the weeks leading up to trial. Private Counsel appeared as well, even though he had not filed a notice of appearance, and requested that the trial be continued. The court—not knowing the full picture of what had happened behind the scenes with Parents’ attempts to change counsel—chastised Private Counsel for the “very, very late notice and request” and denied the continuance, expressing concern that eleven months had already passed since the trial had originally been set. The court then recessed for the day to allow the parties to confer and negotiate about possible permanency options short of termination of Parents’ rights.
¶21 Those negotiations bore fruit, at least in part. With Private Counsel assisting Parents, the parties were able to reach a stipulation that it was in the best interest of the oldest five Children to be placed with Grandparents under an order of permanent custody and guardianship. But the parties were unable to reach a similar stipulation with regard to the Subject Children, and therefore the trial went forward as to them. At that point, Private Counsel withdrew from representing Parents, leaving Appointed Counsel to handle the trial even though they had not—given the lack of communication with Parents—made many of the usual preparations for a trial.
¶22 In support of its case, the State presented testimony from four DCFS caseworkers, two therapists, Mother’s former and current probation officers, and the mother from the Foster Family (Foster Mother). Foster Mother testified that the Subject Children had developed a strong bond with Foster Family and “love[d] spending time with [them].” She also stated that the Subject Children refer to her three children as “their brother and sisters,” that “[n]obody is ever left out amongst the kids,” and that L.H. “believes he is part of [their] family” and “has said, on multiple occasions, that he’s already adopted.” The two therapists testified that the Subject Children did indeed have a strong bond with Foster Family; one of them stated that it was “the most secure attachment [she had] ever witnessed . . . between a foster parent and a foster child,” and offered her view that it would be “hugely devastating” for them if they were removed from Foster Family.
¶23 Several of the caseworkers testified about the strength of the bond between the Subject Children and their older siblings, and they painted a picture in which those bonds were originally very strong but had begun to weaken over time as the Subject Children spent less time with their siblings and became more attached to Foster Family. One of the first caseworkers to work with the family testified that the bonds had been strong among all the Children, including the Subject Children. Another testified about how emotional the older children were upon learning that they were to be removed from the home a second time and again separated from most of their siblings. But another caseworker— who had been assigned to the family in 2019—testified that the Subject Children’s bond to their older siblings was weakening as they became more attached to Foster Family. In general, the caseworkers voiced concerns about separating siblings, offering their view that ordinarily “children should stay together” and that placing siblings together “is understood under most circumstances . . . to be beneficial to the kids.”
¶24 Parents were prohibited from introducing many of their witnesses because they had failed to make their required pretrial disclosures. In particular, Parents were prepared to call one of the Subject Children’s former foster parents as well as some of the older Children, who would each have apparently testified that the bonds between the Subject Children and their siblings had been, and still remained, very strong. But the court refused to allow Parents to call these witnesses because they had not been timely disclosed. The court did, however, allow Parents to offer testimony of their own, and to call Grandparents to testify.
¶25 For their part, Parents testified about how closely bonded the Children had been before DCFS became involved. Father testified that the older siblings had expressed a desire to all be together and noted that, if they were placed with Grandparents, the Subject Children would not only be with siblings, but also with cousins, and would have a large network of familial support. Mother testified that she, too, wanted the Children to be kept together and stated that she knew she was “not what [the Children] deserve” “right now,” but offered her view that, at some point in the future, after she has “[gotten] [her]self together,” she “willbe what’s best for them.”
¶26 Grandfather testified that he and Grandmother told DCFS, right from the start, that they were willing to take all seven children. He explained that they were accustomed to large families, having raised eight children of their own; he noted that two of those children lived nearby, meaning that the Children, if they lived with him, would have aunts, uncles, and cousins in the vicinity. Grandfather testified that he and Grandmother had renovated their house to accommodate all seven children and that they were able, financially and otherwise, to take on the responsibility. He acknowledged that raising seven children was not how he had originally envisioned spending his retirement years, but he offered his view that “no matter what else I could be doing in the next ten or twenty years,” what mattered most to him was “that [he] could be doing something to make a difference in the lives of these kids.” Grandmother testified that she had bonded with A.H. during her three-week stay with the family after L.H. was born, and she offered her view that it had been difficult to get Foster Mother to facilitate telephonic or virtual visits between the older siblings and the Subject Children during the older siblings’ summer 2020 visit to New Mexico.
¶27 After trial, the court took the matter under advisement for six months, issuing a written decision in May 2021. In that ruling, the court terminated Parents’ rights as to A.H. and L.H. It found sufficient statutory grounds for termination of Parents’ parental rights, including Father’s physical abuse of some of the older sons, Parents’ neglect of L.H. when he was malnourished and failing to thrive as an infant, and neglect of the Children for failing to protect them from Mother’s substance use. Similarly, the court found that Mother had neglected the Children by failing to properly feed L.H., insufficiently supervising the Subject Children, and improperly using drugs. Moreover, the court found that Mother’s “substance abuse and criminal behavior” rendered her unfit as a parent.
¶28 The court next found that DCFS had made “reasonable efforts towards the permanency goal of reunification.” It noted that DCFS has been involved with the family since April 2017 and, “during the arc of the case, circumstances changed frequently and there were many setbacks in the attempts to reunify the children with the parents.” The court concluded that “reunification efforts were not successful through no fault of DCFS.”
¶29 Finally, as to best interest, the court determined—in keeping with the parties’ stipulation—that, with regard to the oldest five siblings, “a permanent custody and guardianship arrangement” with Grandparents “would serve their best interests as well as, or better than, an adoption would.” But the court saw it differently when it came to the Subject Children, concluding that their best interest would be best served by the facilitation of an adoption by Foster Family, and that termination of Parents’ rights was strictly necessary to advance that interest. The court reached that decision even though it meant permanently separating the Children, and even though the court acknowledged that Grandparents were “certainly appropriate caregivers.” The court offered several reasons for its decision. First, it noted that the Subject Children were very young—A.H. was two-and-a-half years old, and L.H. was eight months old, when they were first removed from the family home—and that, as a result, they “had a very short time to be with their older siblings.” Second, the court concluded that the strength of the bond between the Subject Children and their siblings was not particularly strong, opining that the Subject Children “have little beyond a biological connection” to their siblings. In this vein, the court downplayed any positive effects that might come from keeping the Children together, describing the older siblings as “a large and unruly group” that “cannot be depended upon to protect” the Subject Children. Third, the court discussed the unquestionably strong bond that the Subject Children had formed with Foster Family. Fourth, the court concluded that disruption of the Subject Children’s “placement at this time would be very detrimental” and would “put them at unnecessary risk for future emotional and mental health issues.” Fifth, the court expressed concern that, absent termination, Parents would retain some level of parental rights and might attempt “to regain custody of the [C]hildren in the future,” an eventuality the court believed would “pose a risk to” the Subject Children. And finally, the court emphasized the importance of stability, stating that “the [Subject Children] and [Foster Family] deserve, and indeed need, the highest level of legal protection available, which would be achieved through adoption.” For these reasons, the juvenile court terminated Parents’ rights with regard to the Subject Children.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶30 Parents now appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights, but their appeal is narrowly focused. Parents do not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that statutory grounds exist for terminating their parental rights. However, Parents do challenge the court’s determination that termination of their parental rights was strictly necessary and in the best interest of the Subject Children. We review a lower court’s “best interest” determination deferentially, and we will overturn it “only if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶¶ 22, 31, 496 P.3d 58 (quotation simplified). But “such deference is not absolute.” Id. ¶ 32. We do not afford “a high degree of deference” to such determinations; rather, we simply apply “the same level of deference given to all lower court findings of fact and ‘fact-like’ determinations of mixed questions.” Id. ¶¶ 29–30. In addition, our deference must be guided by the relevant evidentiary standard applicable in termination of parental rights cases: the “clear and convincing” evidence standard. SeeIn re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 73, 491 P.3d 867. “Although we defer to juvenile courts’ [best-interest] determinations, in reviewing their conclusions we do so with an exacting focus on the proper evidentiary standard,” and “we will not only consider whether any relevant facts have been left out but assess whether the juvenile court’s determination that the ‘clear and convincing’ standard had been met goes against the clear weight of the evidence.” Id.[8]
ANALYSIS
¶31 The right of parents to raise their children is one of the most important rights any person enjoys, and that right is among the fundamental rights clearly protected by our federal and state constitutions. SeeTroxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65–66 (2000) (stating that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children” is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” the court recognizes); see alsoIn re J.P., 648 P.2d 1364, 1372 (Utah 1982) (“A parent has a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution, to sustain his relationship with his child.” (quotation simplified)). Our legislature has expressed similar sentiments, declaring that “[u]nder both the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state, a parent possesses a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of the parent’s child,” see Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022), and that this interest “does not cease to exist simply because . . . a parent may fail to be a model parent,” id. § 80-4-104(4)(a)(i).
¶32 The “termination” of these fundamental “family ties . . . may only be done for compelling reasons.” Seeid. § 80-4-104(1). Under our law, a parent’s rights are subject to termination only if both parts of a two-part test are satisfied. First, a court must find that one or more statutory grounds for termination are present; these include such things as abandonment, abuse, or neglect. See id. § 80-4-301(1). Second, a court must find that termination of the parent’s rights is in the best interest of the children. See In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶¶ 19–20, 472 P.3d 827. The party seeking termination of a parent’s rights bears the burden of proof on both parts of this test. SeeIn re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 43, 491 P.3d 867 (stating that “petitioners in termination proceedings must prove termination is warranted”). And that party must make this required showing “by clear and convincing evidence.” Id.; see alsoSantosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769–70 (1982) (concluding that the U.S. Constitution requires application of a “clear and convincing evidence” standard in parental termination proceedings).
¶33 As noted, Parents do not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that statutory grounds for termination exist in this case. Their challenge is limited to the second part of the test: whether termination of their rights is, under the circumstances presented here, in the best interest of the Subject Children.
¶34 “The best interest of the child has always been a paramount or ‘polar star’ principle in cases involving termination of parental rights,” although it is not “the sole criterion.” In re J.P., 648 P.2d at 1368. The assessment of what is in a child’s best interest is, by definition, “a wide-ranging inquiry that asks a court to weigh the entirety of the circumstances” surrounding a child’s situation, including “the physical, intellectual, social, moral, and educational training and general welfare and happiness of the child.” SeeIn re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶¶ 35, 37, 463 P.3d 66 (quotation simplified). Because children inhabit dynamic environments in which their “needs and circumstances” are “constantly evolving,” “the best-interest inquiry is to be undertaken in a present-tense fashion,” as of the date of the trial or hearing held to decide the question. SeeIn re Z.C.W., 2021 UT App 98, ¶¶ 12–13, 500 P.3d 94 (quotation simplified).
¶35 Our legislature has provided two related pieces of important guidance on the best-interest question. First, it has expressed a strong preference for families to remain together, establishing something akin to a presumption that a child’s best interest will “usually” be served by remaining with the child’s parents:
It is in the best interest and welfare of a child to be raised under the care and supervision of the child’s natural parents. A child’s need for a normal family life in a permanent home, and for positive, nurturing family relationships is usually best met by the child’s natural parents.
Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(8). In that same statutory section, our legislature also emphasized that, “[w]herever possible, family life should be strengthened and preserved.” Seeid. § 80-4-104(12). And the “family” includes the child’s parents as well as the child’s siblings; indeed, in the related child custody context, our legislature has specifically identified “the relative benefit of keeping siblings together” as a factor that the court “may consider” when evaluating “the best interest of the child.” Seeid. § 30-3-10(2)(o) (LexisNexis 2019).[9]
¶36 Second, our legislature has mandated that termination of parental rights is permissible only when such termination is “strictly necessary.” Seeid. § 80-4-301(1). Our supreme court has interpreted this statutory requirement to mean that “termination must be strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest.” SeeIn re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 60. Indeed, a court’s inquiry into the strict necessity of termination should take place as part of the bestinterest inquiry that comprises the second part of the termination test. Seeid. ¶ 76 (stating that, “as part of [the best-interest inquiry], a court must specifically address whether termination is strictly necessary to promote the child’s welfare and best interest”).
¶37 In assessing whether termination is strictly necessary to promote a child’s best interest, courts “shall consider” whether “sufficient efforts were dedicated to reunification” of the family, and whether “the efforts to place the child with kin who have, or are willing to come forward to care for the child, were given due weight.” See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(12)(b). Indeed,
this part of the inquiry also requires courts to explore whether other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family, short of imposing the ultimate remedy of terminating the parent’s rights. In some cases, alternatives will be few and unsatisfactory, and termination of the parent’s rights will be the option that is in the child’s best interest. But in other cases, courts should consider whether other less permanent arrangements might serve the child’s needs just as well.
In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 67 (quotation simplified). Courts that order termination of parental rights without appropriately exploring “feasible alternatives to termination” have not properly applied the second part of the two-part termination test. See, e.g., In re H.F., 2019 UT App 204, ¶ 17, 455 P.3d 1098 (reversing and remanding a juvenile court’s termination order because, among other things, “the court’s determination that termination was strictly necessary was not supported by an appropriate exploration of feasible alternatives to termination”).
¶38 In this case, Parents challenge the juvenile court’s best interest determination, including its subsidiary conclusion that termination of their rights was strictly necessary to promote the best interest of the Subject Children. As discussed herein, we find merit in Parents’ challenge. We recognize that we are reviewing the juvenile court’s determinations deferentially, and we do not lightly reverse a court’s best-interest determination. But the facts of this case simply do not amount to strict necessity, and therefore the best-interest requirement is not met. Stated another way, the evidence presented at trial did not constitute clear and convincing evidence that termination of Parents’ rights to the Subject Children would be in the best interest of those children. Under the specific circumstances of this case, the juvenile court’s determination was against the clear weight of the evidence, and on that basis we reverse.
¶39 In its written decision, the juvenile court set forth several reasons for its conclusion that termination of Parents’ rights was strictly necessary to promote the Subject Children’s best interest.[10] We discuss those reasons, in turn. Although the topics that the juvenile court focused on are certainly appropriate topics to consider when examining best interest, we conclude that the facts underlying those topics—in this case—do not support a determination that termination was strictly necessary to promote the best interest of the Subject Children.
¶40 The court began its best-interest examination by discussing the ages of the Subject Children and, relatedly, the fact that the bonds between the Subject Children and their siblings had deteriorated. The Subject Children are, as noted, the youngest of the seven Children and were very young—A.H. was two-and-ahalf years old, and L.H. was eight months old—when they were first removed from the family home. The juvenile court noted that, as a result, they “did not have the opportunity to live with their parents for as long as their older siblings” and “had a very short time to be with their older siblings.” These facts are unquestionably true, and one of the consequences of these facts is that the Subject Children had less-developed bonds with Parents and with their siblings than the other Children did. But this will almost always be true when children are removed from their homes as newborns or toddlers, and courts must be careful not to overemphasize the significance of the deterioration of familial bonds—particularly sibling bonds—when that deterioration is the result of court-ordered removal from the home at an early age. See, e.g., In re N.M., 186 A.3d 998, 1014 n.30 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018) (vacating an order terminating parental rights in part because the lower court’s decisions during the case had been “designed to affect the bond between” the parents and the child “so that termination would be the natural outcome of the proceedings”).
¶41 The facts of this case present an interesting case study. The next-oldest of the Children was born in April 2013, and is less than two years older than A.H. He was only four years old at the time of the first removal, and yet the juvenile court determined that it would not be in his best interest for Parents’ rights to be terminated. Many of the differences—especially in terms of the strength of the sibling bonds—between the Subject Children’s situation and that of their barely-older brother are largely the result of decisions made by DCFS and the court during the pendency of these proceedings. In a situation like this, a court must be careful not to ascribe too much weight to circumstances that are of the court’s own making.
¶42 We do not doubt the juvenile court’s finding that, by the time of trial, the bonds between the Subject Children and the other Children were not as strong as the bonds between the five oldest Children. We take at face value the court’s statement that the Subject Children, at the time of trial, had “little beyond a biological connection” to their older siblings. But even the biological connection between siblings matters. The connection between siblings is, for many people, the longest-lasting connection they will have in life. Indeed, “the importance of sibling relationships is well recognized by . . . courts and social science scholars,” because “a sibling relationship can be an independent emotionally supporting factor for children in ways quite distinctive from other relationships, and there are benefits and experiences that a child reaps from a relationship with his or her brother(s) or sister(s) which truly cannot be derived from any other.” In re D.C., 4 A.3d 1004, 1012 (N.J. 2010) (quotation simplified); see also Aaron Edward Brown, He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother: The Need for a Statutory Enabling of Sibling Visitation, 27 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 1, 5 (2018) (noting that “[t]oday’s children are more likely to grow up with a sibling than a father,” and that “[t]he sibling relationship is generally regarded to be the longest relationship a person will have because the relationship will typically last longer than a relationship with a parent or spouse”). Such bonds are often especially important “to children who experience chaotic circumstances” like abuse or neglect, because “in such circumstances, they learn very early to depend on and cooperate with each other to cope with their common problems.” In re D.C., 4 A.3d at 1013 (quotation simplified); see alsoIn re Welfare of Child of G.R., No. A17-0995, 2017 WL 5661606, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2017) (“The sibling relationship is especially important for a young child with an unstable family structure as these siblings can provide secure emotional attachment, nurturing, and solace.”). Indeed, trial testimony from the DCFS caseworkers mirrored these sentiments, with the caseworkers stating that “children should stay together” and that placing siblings together “is understood under most circumstances . . . to be beneficial to the kids.”
¶43 And there is nothing in the record before us that indicates significant trouble among the sibling ranks. To the contrary, by all accounts the Children are quite loyal to one another, as best exemplified by their collective reaction—outrage—to being removed from the family home, and from each other, a second time in 2019. The juvenile court referred to them as a “large and unruly group,” but that description would seem to fit almost any group of seven siblings. The court also appeared concerned about “significant sibling rivalr[ies]” among some of the older Children but, again, we would be surprised to find a seven-member sibling group that didn’t have significant sibling rivalries. The court also offered its view that “[t]he older boys cannot be depended upon to protect” the Subject Children, but we think that’s an unfair expectation, as the court itself noted. And there are no allegations (for example, of intra-sibling abuse) about or among this sibling group that would counsel against keeping the group together.
¶44 We are also troubled, under the unusual circumstances of this case, by the fact that the deterioration of the Subject Children’s bonds with their siblings was due, in not-insignificant part, to the way this case was litigated, even apart from the removal and placement decisions. Notably, DCFS did not take any systematic steps to facilitate visitation between the three (and sometimes four) sibling groups that were placed in different homes, but instead “left that mostly up to [the] foster parents.”[11] In particular, DCFS did not allow the Subject Children to visit Grandparents with the rest of the Children during the summer of 2020. And Grandmother offered her perception that it had been difficult to get Foster Mother to facilitate telephonic or virtual visits between the older siblings and the Subject Children during the older siblings’ summer 2020 visit. Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that the Subject Children’s bond with their siblings began to wane. It is intuitive that relationships can become more distant without meaningful contact. To at least some degree, the deterioration of the sibling bonds is attributable to DCFS’s (and the various foster parents’) actions in failing to facilitate regular sibling visitation.
¶45 In addition, DCFS’s delay in starting the ICPC process appears to have also played a role in the way this case turned out. In July 2019, the juvenile court ordered that “an ICPC” be conducted to explore the possibility of placing the Children with Grandparents in New Mexico. But DCFS—perhaps intentionally, according to one of the caseworkers—delayed acting upon the court’s ICPC order for nearly four months, until late October 2019. Delays in obtaining ICPC reports are not necessarily uncommon, and can be just an unfortunate part of the process of communicating between agencies of different states. But such delays are troubling when they are attributable to a state agency’s refusal to even get the process started, despite a court order requiring it to do so. Although DCFS could not have known it at the time, its failure to timely initiate the ICPC process may have mattered more in this case than in others, because of the eventual emergence, in early 2020, of the COVID-19 pandemic.
¶46 Recall that, in the fall of 2019 and early 2020, after DCFS filed its termination petition, all parties were on the same page: they were working toward placing the Children—all of them— with Grandparents in New Mexico. Indeed, it was “highly anticipated by all parties that the results of the ICPC [would] resolve all issues pending before the Court.” But before a placement with Grandparents could happen, the ICPC report needed to be completed, and the parties twice stipulated to continuances of the termination trial specifically so that the ICPC report could be finished, and so that they could “ensure [that] the Grandparents kn[ew] what they [were] getting into.” These continuances resulted in the trial being rescheduled for late March 2020, which in turn resulted in the trial being postponed again because of the emergence of the pandemic. The ICPC report was not completed until October 2020, and by then, the Subject Children had been with Foster Family for more than a year and had begun to develop meaningful bonds there. Under these circumstances, it is hard not to wonder what might have happened if DCFS had begun the ICPC process in July 2019, as it had been ordered to do.[12]
¶47 Next, the court—appropriately—discussed at some length the Subject Children’s bond with Foster Family. There is no doubt that Foster Family is an appropriate adoptive placement, and that Foster Parents are doing a wonderful job caring for the Subject Children. The court made unchallenged findings in this regard, noting that Foster Parents are the ones “who care for them on a daily basis, feed them, hug them, and put them to bed,” and that, from the Subject Children’s point of view, Foster Parents “are their parents.” We do not minimize the significance of these findings. They are important, and are a necessary condition to any adoption-related termination of parental rights. After all, if an adoptive placement is not working out, an adoption into that placement is very unlikely to be finalized.
¶48 But while the existence of an acceptable adoptive placement is a necessary condition to any adoption-related termination, it is not a sufficient one. At some level, we certainly understand the impulse to want to leave children in—and perhaps make permanent—a putative adoptive placement in which the children are thriving. And we recognize—as the juvenile court observed here—that taking a child out of a loving adoptive placement in order to reunite the child with family can be detrimental to the child, at least in the short term. But in order to terminate parental rights to facilitate an adoption, a court must have before it more than just a loving and functional adoptive placement from which it would be emotionally difficult to remove the child. Termination of parental rights must be “strictly necessary to promote the . . . welfare and best interest” of the children in question. SeeIn re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 76, 472 P.3d 827. And in order to reach that conclusion, a court must do more than make a finding about the acceptability of the adoptive placement—it must examine potential options, short of termination, that might also further the best interest of the children in question. Id. ¶¶ 66–67. In particular, and especially in light of our legislature’s guidance that families should be kept together whenever possible, see Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(8), (12), courts must investigate kinship placement possibilities, including options for permanent guardianship. And if one of those placements turns out to be an option that can promote the child’s best interest “just as well,” then it is by definition not “strictly necessary” to terminate the parent’s rights. SeeIn re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶¶ 66–67.
¶49 Moreover, in this context courts must keep in mind the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard. SeeIn re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 44, 491 P.3d 867. If there exists a completely appropriate kinship placement through which the family can remain intact, the “strictly necessary” showing becomes significantly more difficult to make. We stop well short of holding that, where an acceptable kinship placement exists, it can never be strictly necessary to terminate a parent’s rights. But in such cases, the proponent of termination must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the adoptive placement is materially better for the children than the kinship placement is. After all, if the two placements can each “equally protect[] and benefit[]” the child’s best interest, then by definition there does not exist clear and convincing evidence in favor of terminating a parent’s rights. SeeIn re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 66. And in this case, the necessary showing was not made.
¶50 Perhaps most significantly, there is not a hint of any evidence in the record before us that placement with Grandparents is flawed. The ICPC report (finally) came back clean; that report raised no concerns with regard to Grandparents, and concluded that their home would be an appropriate placement for the Children. The five older siblings had a lengthy visit with Grandparents in the summer of 2020, and all went well. And just before trial, the parties stipulated that the five oldest
Children should be placed with Grandparents on a long-term basis, subject to a permanent custody and guardianship arrangement. The court approved this stipulation, agreeing with the parties “that a permanent custody and guardianship arrangement” would serve the best interest of the five oldest Children. It even found that Grandparents are “certainly appropriate caregivers.” And on appeal, all parties agree that Grandparents are acceptable and loving caregivers; no party has even attempted to take issue with Grandparents’ ability to provide a loving and stable home for the Children. There is no dispute that Grandparents have the capacity and ability, from a financial standpoint as well as otherwise, to care for all seven Children, and stand ready and willing to do so, regardless of whether that takes the form of an adoption or a permanent guardianship arrangement.
¶51 The juvenile court opted to go in a different direction, primarily for three related reasons. First, it emphasized how “detrimental” and “destabilizing” it would be for the Subject Children to be removed from Foster Family. Second, the court emphasized that the Subject Children need stability and permanency, and determined that adoption—as opposed to guardianship—could best provide that stability. Third, the court expressed concern that, absent an adoption, Parents might attempt—at some later point in time—to get back into the lives of the Subject Children, and perhaps even “regain custody,” an eventuality the court believed would “pose a risk to” the Subject Children. In our view, these stated reasons do not constitute clear and convincing reasons to terminate Parents’ rights.
¶52 With regard to permanency and stability, our supreme court has recently clarified that the mere fact that adoptions—as a category—provide more permanency and stability than guardianships do is not enough to satisfy the statutory “strictly necessary” standard. SeeIn re J.A.L., 2022 UT 12, ¶ 24, 506 P.3d 606. In that case, the court held that the lower court fell into legal error in concluding that [a guardianship option] would not provide the “same degree of permanency as an adoption.” That is not the question under our law. A permanent guardianship by definition does not offer the same degree of permanency as an adoption. And there is always some risk that the permanent guardianship could come to an end, or be affected by visitation by the parent. If these categorical concerns were enough, termination and adoption would be strictly necessary across the board. But such categorical analysis is not in line with the statutory standard.
Id. The court then noted that, as part of the “strictly necessary” analysis, a court “must assess whether a permanent guardianship can equally protect and benefit the children in the case before it.” Id. ¶ 25 (quotation simplified). The court made clear that the statutory requirements were “not met by the categorical concern that a permanent guardianship is not as stable or permanent as an adoption,” and instead “require[] analysis of the particularized circumstances of the case before the court.” Id.
¶53 As applied here, this recent guidance renders insufficient—and more or less beside the point—the juvenile court’s apparent belief that an adoption was better than a guardianship simply because it was more permanent and more stable. All adoptions are at least somewhat more permanent than guardianships, and therefore that conclusion, standing alone, is not enough to constitute clear and convincing evidence supporting termination. It is certainly appropriate for courts in termination cases to discuss the potential need for permanency and stability. But in doing so, and when selecting an adoptive option over a guardianship option, a court in a termination case must articulate case-specific reasons why the added layer of permanency that adoptions offer is important and why adoption would better serve the best interest of the children in question than the guardianship option would.
¶54 The court’s concern about the possibility of Parents reentering the Children’s lives is, on this record, not an adequate case-specific reason. As an initial matter, it—like the lack of permanency—is a feature of the entire category of guardianships. It will always be true that, in a guardianship, a parent retains what the juvenile court here referred to as “residual rights,” while in an adoption the parent’s rights are terminated forever. This kind of categorical concern is not enough to constitute clear and convincing evidence in support of termination.
¶55 Moreover, we question whether—in many cases, including this one—a parent’s desire to re-engage in their child’s life should be viewed as negatively as the juvenile court appeared to view it. Here, we return to the statutory guidance offered by our legislature: that “family life should be strengthened and preserved” “[w]herever possible,” and that it is usually “in the best interest and welfare of a child to be raised under the care and supervision of the child’s natural parents.” See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(8), (12). We note our own observation that, “[i]n many cases, children will benefit from having more people—rather than fewer—in their lives who love them and care about them.” SeeIn re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 55, 436 P.3d 206, aff’d, 2020 UT 60, 472 P.3d 827. And we acknowledge Parents’ point that a parent whose child has been placed in a permanent guardianship arrangement in a child welfare proceeding has no independent right to petition to change or dissolve the guardianship. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-357(3)(d) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). Only the guardian has that right. See id. And there is no evidence, in this record, that Grandparents will be particularly susceptible to inappropriate pressure from Parents to seek a change in the terms of any guardianship arrangement. In addition, there is no evidence that, if the Subject Children were placed into a guardianship with Grandparents, it would be harmful to them for Parents to retain the possibility of maintaining some form of contact with them (as they have with regard to the other Children), as supervised by court order and by Grandparents acting as guardians.[13] In other words, the juvenile court did not emphasize any case-specific issues that make us especially concerned about the possibility of Parents attempting to re-enter the Children’s lives at some point in the future.
¶56 We are thus left with the court’s concern—shared by the Subject Children’s therapists—about the disruption in the Subject Children’s lives that would be caused by removing them from Foster Family and placing them with Grandparents, alongside their siblings. This is of course a legitimate concern, and one that courts should take into account in situations like this. If and when the Subject Children are ever placed into a guardianship with Grandparents, and taken from Foster Family, that will no doubt be traumatic for them, at least in the short term. We acknowledge the validity of such concerns, and do not intend to minimize them. But in this case, focusing too much on this more-present possibility of emotional trauma risks minimizing the longer-term emotional trauma that permanent severance of the sibling bonds will likely someday trigger. In this specific and unique situation, the juvenile court’s discussion of potential emotional trauma associated with removal from Foster Family does not constitute clear and convincing evidence supporting termination.
¶57 For all of these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court’s best-interest determination was against the clear weight of the evidence presented at trial. The State failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Parents’ rights to Subject Children was strictly necessary, especially given the presence of another available and acceptable option—permanent guardianship with Grandparents, alongside their five siblings— that would not require permanent severance of familial bonds and that would serve the Subject Children’s best interest at least as well as adoption. SeeIn re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 75 (“[W]hen two placement options would equally benefit a child, the strictlynecessary requirement operates as a preference for a placement option that does not necessitate termination over an option that does.”). Under the unique circumstances of this case, termination of Parents’ rights is not strictly necessary to promote the Subject Children’s best interest.
CONCLUSION
¶58 Accordingly, we reverse the juvenile court’s order of termination, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We offer a reminder that best-interest determinations are to be conducted in present-tense fashion, as of the date of the trial or hearing convened to consider the matter. SeeIn re Z.C.W., 2021 UT App 98, ¶ 14, 500 P.3d 94. Our holding today is that, based on the evidence presented at trial in October
2020, termination of Parents’ rights was not strictly necessary to promote the Subject Children’s best interest. On remand, the juvenile court should re-assess best interest. If nothing has materially changed since October 2020, then we expect the court to enter orders designed to work (perhaps quite gradually, in the court’s discretion) toward integration of the Subject Children into a placement with Grandparents, alongside their siblings. But if there is evidence that matters have materially changed since October 2020, the court may need to consider that evidence in some fashion, seeid. ¶ 15, and re-assess best interest based on the situation at the time of the hearing.
[1]Senior Judge Kate Appleby sat by special assignment as authorized by law. See generally Utah R. Jud. Admin. 11-201(7).
[2] In this opinion, for ease of reference, we refer to E.H.’s paternal grandparents as “Grandparents,” and we refer to them individually as “Grandmother” and “Grandfather,” even though any biological relationship exists only with E.H. and not with the other six Children.
[3] L.H. was removed from the home for a one-month period during this time, again because of concerns that he was malnourished and “failing to thrive.”
[4] These arrangements were a bit fluid during this period—at one point, the oldest four Children were combined into one placement, and the fifth-oldest was placed with Foster Family along with the Subject Children. However, the mother of the Foster Family testified at trial that, after a while, the fifth child often got upset at how his younger siblings were becoming so attached to Foster Family, and so she eventually asked that he be placed elsewhere.
[5] The abbreviation “ICPC” refers to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, an interstate agreement that has been adopted by all fifty states. See Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-701 (LexisNexis 2018). The ICPC allows child welfare agencies from different states to more easily cooperate regarding placement of children across state lines.
[7] The facts recited in this paragraph regarding Parents’ communications with their various attorneys are not in the record, but are included in the materials submitted on appeal in support of Parents’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[8] Parents also raise other issues, including an assertion that Private Counsel rendered deficient performance that prejudiced them at the termination trial. Although we acknowledge the strength of Parents’ assertion that Private Counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and discuss in passing the problems they had with him, we need not reach the merits of that claim or any of their other claims because we reverse on the merits of their main claim.
[9] A court’s consideration of the importance of sibling relationships is arguably even more important in the termination/adoption context than it is in the child custody context, simply because of the permanency of termination and adoption. When split custody is ordered in a domestic case, the children will not live together all the time, but their overarching family relationship remains intact; they will remain siblings and, depending on visitation schedules, they will likely see each other several times each month. But when—as in this case—siblings are separated for purposes of adoption, the familial bonds, including the sibling bonds, are more permanently affected.
[10] Parents assert that the juvenile court erred by limiting its best interest inquiry to the Subject Children, rather than considering whether termination of Parents’ rights to the Subject Children was in the best interest of all the Children. Although we are far from persuaded by Parents’ assertion, we need not further concern ourselves with it, because for purposes of our analysis we assume, without deciding, that the juvenile court properly focused on the Subject Children when conducting the best-interest inquiry. Even assuming the propriety of that more limited focus, we nevertheless find the court’s ultimate best-interest determination unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
[11] DCFS’s actions in this regard were arguably contrary to statute. See Utah Code Ann.§ 62A-4a-205(12)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022) (stating that DCFS must “incorporate reasonable efforts to . . . provide sibling visitation when siblings are separated due to foster care or adoptive placement”); see alsoid. § 80-3307(12)(a) (requiring DCFS to “incorporate into the child and family plan reasonable efforts to provide sibling visitation if . . . siblings are separated due to foster care or adoptive placement”).
[12] The juvenile court addressed this issue in its written ruling, and downplayed the significance of the delayed ICPC report. It expressed its view that, even if DCFS had timely requested the ICPC report, the case would not have come out differently. First, it assumed that the ICPC process would have taken a year to complete even if the report had been requested in July 2019. We wonder about that, and in particular wonder whether any of the delays in completing the ICPC report were due to the emergence of the pandemic. But more to the point, the court indicated that it would have made the same termination decision in July 2020 as it made in October 2020. However, the court does not account for the fact that all parties to the case, including DCFS, were on the same page at least as late as March 12, 2020, and anticipated placing all the Children with Grandparents as soon as the ICPC report came back. Had the ICPC report come back significantly earlier, while the parties were still in agreement, things almost certainly would have been different. We doubt that the juvenile court would have rejected the parties’ stipulation on that point, just as it did not reject the parties’ October 2020 stipulation regarding the five oldest Children.
[13] Indeed, concerns about Parents potentially getting back into the lives of the Subject Children appear especially overblown under the facts of this case, given the fact that the juvenile court approved the stipulation for a permanent guardianship arrangement for the other five Children. The court does not convincingly explain why it is concerned for the Subject Children and not the others, stating only that the potential for the Parents to “regain custody . . . might not be devastating for the older children, but it will certainly be devastating to” the Subject Children. Presumably, this is a reference to the fact that the Subject Children are younger and have less of a pre-existing relationship with Parents and the other Children, an aspect of this case that we have already discussed.
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M. Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and RYAN D. TENNEY concurred.
CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:
¶1 Appellant J.K. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order substantiating several database findings of abuse entered by the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 In August 2020, the State filed with the juvenile court a Verified Petition for Protective Supervision requesting the court to find Mother’s son, K.T., “abused, neglected and/or dependent and to grant protective supervision of [K.T.] to DCFS.” The petition alleged that DCFS had on three separate occasions previously supported findings of abuse of K.T. against Mother.[1] In addition to the request for protective supervision of K.T., the petition requested that the juvenile court enter an order “[s]ubstantiating[2] the DCFS supported finding(s) pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-323,” now recodified at Utah Code section 80-3-404.[3]
¶3 In March 2021, following discussions with Mother, the State filed with the juvenile court an Amended Verified Petition for Protective Supervision. The amended petition again asked the court to find K.T. “neglected and/or dependent and to grant protective supervision of [K.T.] to DCFS,” but it eliminated the prior request that the court find K.T. to be “abused.” The amended petition repeated the original petition’s request that the court enter a finding “[s]ubstantiating the DCFS supported finding(s) pursuant to Utah Code” section 80-3-404.
¶4 The parties thereafter appeared before the juvenile court to adjudicate the amended petition. At the outset of the hearing, the State indicated it had reached an agreement with Mother to submit the amended petition “for [a] finding of neglect” and requested, without objection, that “the issue of substantiating the DCFS supported findings” be “set over.” Thereafter, Mother admitted many of the allegations of the amended petition. But pursuant to rule 34(e) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure, she declined to either admit or deny the allegations that DCFS had previously supported findings of abuse by Mother against K.T.[4] The parties then presented argument. The State argued for a finding of neglect, while Mother argued for a finding of dependency. After the hearing, the court entered a finding of neglect[5] and granted “[p]rotective supervision of [K.T.] . . . to DCFS.”[6] The court “reserve[d] the issue of substantiating the DCFS supported findings for the next hearing.”
¶5 In June 2021, the case came before the juvenile court for a disposition hearing, during which the State requested that the court address the substantiation issue. The court entertained argument and took the matter under advisement. It thereafter entered a written order substantiating the three DCFS supported findings of abuse by Mother contained in both the original and amended petitions. Specifically, it substantiated the supported findings that K.T. had suffered emotional abuse, physical abuse, and chronic emotional abuse.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶6 Mother now appeals the juvenile court’s order substantiating the DCFS supported findings of abuse and raises three issues for our review. The first two issues present questions as to the statutory authority of the juvenile court. Mother first argues the juvenile court exceeded its statutory authority to substantiate the DCFS findings of abuse because the amended petition alleged only neglect or dependency and the court had adjudicated only a finding of neglect. “Questions of jurisdiction and statutory interpretation are questions of law that we review for correctness, giving no particular deference to lower court decisions.” In re B.B.G., 2007 UT App 149, ¶ 4, 160 P.3d 9.
¶7 In a similar vein, Mother next argues the State and the juvenile court were bound by the stipulation of the parties to submit the amended petition only for “a finding of neglect.” When “the facts [are] stipulated, we review the conclusions drawn by the juvenile court for correctness.” In re B.T., 2009 UT App 182, ¶ 5, 214 P.3d 881 (quotation simplified).
¶8 Lastly, Mother alternatively argues her trial counsel was ineffective for not advising her that the juvenile court could deviate from its legal adjudication of neglect and later substantiate for abuse. “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162.
ANALYSIS
I.
¶9 We turn first to Mother’s argument that the juvenile court exceeded its statutory authority in substantiating the DCFS findings for abuse because the amended petition alleged only neglect or dependency and the court had adjudicated K.T. as neglected. We are unpersuaded by this argument because it conflates the State’s request that the court adjudicate K.T. as neglected with its independent request that the court substantiate the DCFS supported findings of abuse. The State’s request to adjudicate K.T. as neglected so as to bring the child within the jurisdiction of the court and under the protective supervision of DCFS was separate from its request that the court substantiate DCFS’s finding that K.T. had suffered a severe type of child abuse. As explained below, the juvenile court had independent statutory authority to adjudicate both issues.
¶10 In Utah, proceedings concerning abuse, neglect, and dependency are governed by Chapter 3 of the Utah Juvenile Code (the UJC). Pursuant to Chapter 3, “any interested person may file an abuse, neglect, or dependency petition” in the juvenile court. Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-201(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). Among other things, the petition must include “a concise statement of facts, separately stated, to support the conclusion that the child upon whose behalf the abuse, neglect, or dependency petition is brought is abused, neglected, or dependent.” Id. § 80-3-201(4)(a). After the petition is filed, the court may, upon making specific findings, “order that the child be removed from the child’s home or otherwise taken into protective custody.” Id. § 80-3-204(2). If the court so orders, a shelter hearing must then be held to determine whether continued removal and placement of the child in DCFS’s temporary custody are necessary. See id. § 80-3-301.
¶11 After the shelter hearing, the juvenile court conducts an adjudication hearing. See id. § 80-3-401. An adjudication is a determination of the merits of the State’s petition of abuse, neglect, or dependency. “If, at the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the allegations contained in the abuse, neglect, or dependency petition are true, the juvenile court shall conduct a dispositional hearing.” Id. § 80-3-402(1); see also In re S.A.K., 2003 UT App 87, ¶ 14, 67 P.3d 1037 (“In child welfare proceedings, if the petition’s allegations of neglect, abuse, or dependency are found to be true in the adjudication hearing, those findings provide the basis for determining the consequences in the disposition hearing.”). “The dispositional hearing may be held on the same date as the adjudication hearing . . . .” Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-402(2). Dispositions available after adjudication include, among other things, vesting custody of an abused, neglected, or dependent minor in DCFS or any other appropriate person. Id. § 80-3405(2)(a)(i). Thus, an adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency brings the child and family within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.
¶12 A separate chapter of the UJC addresses child welfare services. Chapter 2 creates DCFS and establishes its statutory authority and responsibilities. Among these is its responsibility to investigate reports that a child is abused, neglected, or dependent and to enter findings at the conclusion of its investigations. See id. § 80-2-701. A “supported” finding by DCFS is based on evidence available at the completion of an investigation indicating that “there is a reasonable basis to conclude that abuse, neglect, or dependency occurred.” Id. § 80-1-102(89). Chapter 2 requires that DCFS notify alleged perpetrators of supported findings and establishes a procedure for challenging such findings. Id. §§ 80-2707, -708. In cases involving a supported finding of a severe type of child abuse, the statute also gives DCFS authority to file a petition in the juvenile court seeking substantiation of a supported finding. Id. § 80-2-708(1)(c).
¶13 Part 10 of Chapter 2 governs DCFS’s record-keeping responsibilities. DCFS uses a database known as the Management Information System to track child welfare and protective services cases. See id. § 80-2-1001(3), (4). DCFS uses a subset of that system known as the Licensing Information System (the LIS) to track cases for licensing purposes. See id. § 80-2-1002(1)(a)(i). In cases involving a severe type of child abuse or neglect, DCFS enters supported findings into the LIS and the alleged perpetrator thereafter “may be disqualified from adopting a child, receiving state funds as a child care provider, or being licensed by DCFS, a human services program, a child care provider or program, or a covered health care facility.” State v. A.C., 2022 UT App 121, ¶ 3, 521 P.3d 186 (quotation simplified).
¶14 All these statutes were in play in these proceedings. On three separate occasions prior to the State’s filing of the petition, DCFS had investigated Mother for abuse of K.T. Following each of its three investigations, DCFS had supported a finding of abuse of K.T. against Mother. One of those supported findings was of “chronic emotional abuse” of K.T., which falls within the statutory definition of a “severe type of child abuse” under Utah Code section 80-1-102(78)(a)(i)(A) that then must be entered into the LIS.
¶15 The amended petition removed the request that the juvenile court adjudicate K.T. as abused. Instead, it requested that the court adjudicate K.T. as neglected. But the amended petition also recited DCFS’s history with K.T., stating that DCFS had previously supported findings of abuse against Mother, and requested that the court substantiate these supported findings of abuse. Adjudicating both requests for relief fell squarely within the juvenile court’s express statutory authority. Indeed, Mother identifies no statutory provision limiting the court’s authority to substantiate DCFS findings of abuse based on the outcome of the State’s independent request to adjudicate the status of an allegedly abused, neglected, or dependent child.
¶16 Mother’s argument that the juvenile court’s substantiation decision must be consistent with its adjudication decision in a related petition for abuse, neglect, or dependency is also inconsistent with the burdens of proof dictated by the UJC. While the juvenile court may adjudicate a minor as abused, neglected, or dependent based only on clear and convincing evidence, it can substantiate a DCFS finding based on a mere preponderance of the evidence. Compare Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-102(87), withid. § 80-3-402(1). These different standards give rise to the distinct possibility that a juvenile court could decline to adjudicate a minor as abused, while still substantiating a DCFS finding of abuse based on the lower burden of proof.
¶17 Despite the absence of a statutory provision linking the outcome of the amended petition to the outcome of a request for substantiation, Mother argues the juvenile court’s ruling on the neglect petition ended the court proceedings, “leaving no question open for further judicial action.” (Quoting In re M.W., 2000 UT 79, ¶ 25, 12 P.3d 80.) But this argument is directly contrary to the statutory language. Utah Code section 80-3-404 addresses the responsibility of the juvenile court to adjudicate DCFS supported findings of severe child abuse or neglect and their inclusion in or removal from the LIS. Upon the filing of “an abuse, neglect or dependency petition . . . that informs the juvenile court that [DCFS] has made a supported finding that an individual committed a severe type of child abuse or neglect, the juvenile court shall . . . make a finding of substantiated, unsubstantiated, or without merit” and include the finding in a written order. Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-404(1) (emphasis added). This provision also allows joinder of proceedings for adjudication of supported findings of severe abuse or neglect with those that do not constitute severe abuse. Id. § 80-3-404(3). And it does not limit the juvenile court’s ability to substantiate findings of severe abuse to those cases in which the court has granted a petition to adjudicate a child as abused. In short, the juvenile court was required to rule on the State’s substantiation request.[7]
II.
¶18 Next, Mother argues the State and juvenile court were bound by the facts and legal conclusions contained in the amended petition to which the parties had stipulated. Mother reasons that because the parties had stipulated to a finding of neglect, the juvenile court could not substantiate DCFS’s supported findings of abuse.
¶19 Mother’s argument is inconsistent with both the language of the amended petition and the course of the proceedings before the juvenile court. At the hearing on the amended petition, the State informed the court that the State and Mother had agreed to submit the matter to the court for a “finding of neglect” and that they “would ask also the Court to reserve the issue of substantiating the DCFS supporting findings at this point in time and set that over for disposition.” In connection therewith, Mother agreed to admit the allegations of the amended petition except those in paragraphs 5 and 6. Paragraph 5 alleged DCFS’s history with the family, including DCFS’s supported findings of abuse. Paragraph 6 alleged additional facts supporting the conclusion that K.T. was neglected or dependent.
¶20 Although Mother declined to admit the allegations of paragraphs 5 and 6, she did not deny them. Instead, she proceeded pursuant to rule 34(e) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure by neither admitting nor denying them. But as the juvenile court expressly informed Mother at the hearing, Mother’s decision not to deny those allegations had legal significance since “[a]llegations not specifically denied by a respondent shall be deemed true.” See Utah R. Juv. P. 34(e). The court was therefore free to base its decision on all the allegations of the amended petition, including those in paragraph 6 regarding DCFS’s supported findings of abuse. Because the parties’ stipulation was not inconsistent with the court’s ruling, it did not err.
III.
¶21 Lastly, we turn to Mother’s argument that her trial counsel was ineffective for not advising her that the juvenile court could deviate from its adjudication of neglect and substantiate DCFS’s findings of abuse for entry into the LIS. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Mother must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient performance prejudiced her defense. See In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114,¶ 19, 473 P.3d 184. A reviewing court must “indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, and that under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” State v. J.A.L.,2011 UT 27, ¶ 25, 262 P.3d 1 (quotation simplified).
¶22 After indulging these presumptions, we are unable to conclude that counsel’s performance was deficient because there are many sound reasons why Mother’s decision to settle the petition with a finding of neglect, while allowing the juvenile court to resolve the substantiation issue, was sound strategy. The petition sought a finding that K.T. had been abused, and it was possible, if not likely, that proceeding to trial on the original petition could have resulted in both an adjudication of abuse and a substantiation of the abuse claims against Mother. The fact that Mother now regrets her decision to settle does not lead to the conclusion that counsel performed deficiently. Mother appeared before the juvenile court, and the court explained her rights and questioned her about the voluntariness of her decision. Nothing in the record suggests that Mother’s decision to settle was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.
CONCLUSION
¶23 The juvenile court acted well within its statutory authority in substantiating DCFS’s findings of child abuse, and the court was entitled to consider all the allegations of the amended petition when determining whether to substantiate that finding. Mother has not demonstrated how her decision to settle was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm.
[1] As relevant here, “abuse” is defined as “nonaccidental harm of a child” or “threatened harm of a child.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-1102(1)(a)(i) (LexisNexis Supp. 2022). “‘Supported’ means a finding by [DCFS] based on the evidence available at the completion of an investigation, and separate consideration of each allegation made or identified during the investigation, that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that abuse, neglect, or dependency occurred.” Id. § 80-1-102(89).
[2] “‘Substantiated’ or ‘substantiation’ means a judicial finding based on a preponderance of the evidence, and separate consideration of each allegation made or identified in the case, that abuse, neglect, or dependency occurred.” Id. § 80-1-102(87).
[3] The statutory provisions of Title 78A of the Utah Code that were in effect at the time of the juvenile court proceedings have since been renumbered and recodified as part of the Utah Juvenile Code, which is now found in Title 80 of the Utah Code. Because the provisions relevant to our analysis have not been substantively amended, we cite the recodified version for convenience.
[4] Under rule 34(e) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure, “[a] respondent may answer by admitting or denying the specific allegations of the petition, or by declining to admit or deny the allegations. Allegations not specifically denied by a respondent shall be deemed true.” Utah R. Juv. P. 34(e).
Here, the juvenile court took great care to ensure that Mother understood the consequences of not denying these allegations. The court informed Mother that it was “going to find [the allegations] to be true, even though [she was] not admitting nor denying [them].” When Mother indicated she did not understand, the court took a break to allow Mother to confer with her counsel. Following the break, the court confirmed that Mother had ample opportunity to discuss the issue with counsel and understood what was happening with respect to the allegations at issue.
[5] Although the juvenile court entered a finding of neglect pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, it indicated the evidence was also sufficient to support a finding of abuse.
[6] Even though the court placed K.T. under the protective supervision of DCFS, K.T. remained in his father’s custody.
[7] Mother also argues the juvenile court erred by not ruling on the State’s substantiation request at the time it adjudicated the petition for neglect. But Mother did not preserve this argument below. When the State raised the substantiation request at the adjudication hearing and asked that it be continued to a later hearing, Mother did not object.
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF G.B. AND A.C.,
PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
T.R.B.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Opinion
No. 20210396-CA
Filed August 4, 2022
Fifth District Juvenile Court, Cedar City Department
The Honorable Troy A. Little
No. 1195807
Colleen K. Coebergh, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L. C. Verdoia, and John M.
Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE RYAN D. TENNEY authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER and JUSTICE DIANA
HAGEN concurred.[1]
TENNEY, Judge:
¶1 The Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) removed G.B. and his maternal half-brother, A.C., from their home in connection with their mother’s arrest on drug-related charges and reports of domestic violence at the home. The juvenile court later adjudicated the two children as “abused and neglected,” and as part of this determination, it made a subsidiary finding that G.B.’s father, T.R.B. (Father), “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.” Based on this finding, the court ordered Father to complete a substance abuse evaluation and submit to random drug testing.
¶2 Father now challenges the juvenile court’s abuse determination as well as its disposition order. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Petition for Protective Custody
¶3 In February 2021, two-year-old G.B. and six-year-old A.C. were living with Father and their biological mother (Mother). Father is G.B.’s biological father, but he’s not A.C.’s. That month, DCFS filed a verified petition seeking protective custody of the children on the basis that they were “abused, neglected, or dependent.” The petition set forth several sets of facts in support of the “abuse, neglect, or dependency” allegations.
¶4 First, the petition alleged that Mother and Father “had recently engaged in Domestic Violence” and that the children had been “exposed” to that domestic violence. It alleged that when police responded to a recent domestic disturbance at the home, Mother told officers that Father had “pushed [her] into the tub [and] rammed her head into the wall, before throwing her into the wall.” It also noted that A.C. reported that Mother and Father “say mean words to each other,” that A.C. “has had to go upstairs so that he would not have to hear the fighting,” and that Father “broke his door when upset on one occasion.”
¶5 Second, the petition alleged that DCFS had recently received “information” indicating that Father “had hit a child on the back hard enough to leave bruising.”
¶6 Third, the petition made a number of allegations about the living conditions at the family home. Of note, it alleged that the home was “observed to have broken pieces of glass outside” and “a nail . . . in close proximity to the children’s toys.” It also alleged that the “children were observed between February 8, 2021 and February 12, 2021 to be dirty, [with] hair so messy that knots had to be cut out” and “feet which were black.”
¶7 Finally (and most significantly for purposes of this appeal), the petition included several allegations about illegal drug use by both Mother and Father.
¶8 With respect to Mother, the petition asserted that she had recently been arrested for driving while intoxicated and that the arresting officer had discovered illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia in her backpack. The petition also detailed other instances in which illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia had been found near Mother, including an instance in which drugs and paraphernalia were found in a place that “would have been accessible by the children.”
¶9 The petition further alleged that Father “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.” According to the petition, “Mother has stated that she uses heroin with [Father] daily and that he uses approximately a gram a day.” The petition also alleged that when police responded to the domestic disturbance described above, Mother told them “that she and [Father] got into an argument after she discovered [Father] and another individual getting ready to use substances.” According to the petition, responding officers had searched a “camp trailer” on the property and found “several pipes, tinfoil with heroin residue, a burned spoon, and syringes.”[2]
¶10 The petition did note, however, that Father “denied any use of illegal substances or that he was aware the Mother used illegal substances.” And it further noted that Father had “claimed [that] any paraphernalia” found in the trailer “belonged [to his friend].” But the petition also alleged that about two months after the paraphernalia was found in the trailer, Father refused to let a DCFS caseworker inside that trailer and declined to take a drug test. And it alleged that Father then “admitted” to the caseworker that he and Mother smoked cigarettes in the trailer where the drug paraphernalia was found.
Pretrial Proceedings and Adjudication Hearing
¶11 The juvenile court held a shelter hearing after the petition was filed. At the close of the hearing, the court approved the removal of the children and placed them in DCFS’s temporary custody.
¶12 On March 23, 2021, the court held a pretrial hearing. At that hearing, Mother responded to the allegations in the petition pursuant to rule 34(e) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure, meaning that while she neither admitted nor denied the allegations, she agreed that the court would treat the allegations as true. See Utah R. Juv. P. 34(e) (“A respondent may answer by admitting or denying the specific allegations of the petition, or by declining to admit or deny the allegations. Allegations not specifically denied by a respondent shall be deemed true.”). Father continued to deny the allegations pertaining to his substance abuse, however, so the court scheduled an adjudication hearing to address the allegations against him. The court also found the children to be neglected and abused by Mother and ordered DCFS to develop a child and family service plan for the family and each child, to set a primary permanency goal of reunification, and to provide reunification services to Mother. That plan required Mother to, among other things, “participate and engage in a parenting program to increase parenting knowledge and behavior.” See Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-205(8)(d) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021) (“[C]hild and family plans shall address problems that . . . keep a child in placement . . . .”).
¶13 At his adjudication hearing, Father entered a rule 34(e) plea of his own regarding most of the allegations in the petition, but he still denied the allegation that he “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.” The hearing was accordingly limited to determining whether Father had “issues related to the use of illegal substances.” As a further point of specificity, Father did not dispute that drug paraphernalia was “found on the property”; instead, Father only disputed that the paraphernalia “pertain[ed] to him.”
¶14 The State presented three witnesses: an officer (Officer) who was present when police found the drug paraphernalia in the camp trailer, Mother, and the DCFS investigator (Investigator) assigned to the case.
¶15 Officer testified that when he responded to the domestic disturbance, Mother told him that she and Father started fighting because Father “was out with his girlfriend in the camp trailer using drugs.” According to Officer, Mother told him she “had seen [Father] using out [in the trailer] many times.” Officer also testified that another officer found drug paraphernalia in the trailer that day, including “several used syringes,” “used tinfoil with burn marks on it consistent with smoking illegal substances,” “a pipe or two,” and “a spoon with burnt residue in it.” Officer further testified that he spoke with Father on the phone a week later and that Father admitted during that conversation that his friend “used drugs . . . out in the trailer.” Finally, Officer testified that Father offered to “submit to a drug test” but that Officer never actually had him complete one.
¶16 In her testimony, Mother confirmed that she had told police that Father “had been using illegal substances in the trailer on the property.” She also confirmed that she had reported that Father “was using one gram of heroin daily.” But Mother also claimed that she had only “made an assumption that he was using heroin” because she “had picked it up for him” and that she “had never actually seen him doing it.” Mother also testified that she and Father “smoke[d] cigarettes” in the trailer. On cross-examination, Mother stated that she was “satisfied that [Father] was not using drugs” after seeing the results of a drug test that he had taken for work in March 2021.
¶17 Finally, Investigator testified that he spoke with Father in February 2021 and that Father’s “pupils were very pinpoint” at that time. Investigator said that when he asked Father about Mother’s drug use, Father “claimed that he didn’t know anything that was going on with her.” Investigator further testified that when he asked to see the trailer where police had found drug paraphernalia, Father “den[ied him] access.” Investigator said that Father also initially “claimed it wasn’t his trailer . . . and that just no one goes in it.” But when Investigator pressed, Father “admitted that he goes inside to smoke cigarettes.” Investigator said that he asked Father to take a drug test but that Father “declined.” Finally, Investigator testified that he spoke with Mother in February 2021 and that Mother told him that she and Father “had used together, that she was using more than him, specifically heroin, but that they were using together daily.”
¶18 After the State rested, Father testified. He claimed that he had not “used any illegal substances” “in the last five years” and that he takes “random drug tests and at least one drug test a year” for his work as a truck driver. Father also claimed that he had passed drug tests administered by DCFS somewhere between 18 and 24 months earlier.
¶19 When asked about the trailer, Father said that it belonged to his friend and that he was “just allowing her to put her trailer on [his] property.” Father testified that he was “aware [his friend] ha[d] used illegal substances in the past,” but he denied that the drug paraphernalia was his. On cross-examination, Father admitted that he sometimes used the trailer “as a storage unit.” He also admitted that during the winter of 2020, he went into it to smoke cigarettes.
Adjudication Ruling
¶20 After closing arguments, the court found “by clear and convincing evidence” that:
· “On or about December 28, 2020, Law Enforcement discovered drug paraphernalia including several pipes, tinfoil with heroin residue, a burned spoon, and syringes in a camper on the property where the family lived.”
· “On or about February 5, 2021, [DCFS] contacted [Father]. [Father] refused to allow the caseworker to see inside the trailer but admitted that they (the Mother and [Father]) do smoke (cigarettes) inside of it. [Father] was asked to drug test for [DCFS], and he has declined to do so.”
· “Mother has stated that she uses heroin with [Father] daily and that he uses approximately a gram a day.”
· Mother testified “that she gets heroin for [Father], and she gives it to him.”
· “Father has denied any drug use or any knowledge of drug use by the Mother.”
¶21 Drawing on these findings, the court found by “clear and convincing evidence” that Father “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.” Elaborating on this, the court referenced the fact that there was “paraphernalia and some residue found in a location where both [Mother] and [Father] say they’ve been and they frequent often,” meaning the trailer. And referring again to Father’s admitted habit of smoking cigarettes in that trailer, the court opined that Father was just “way too close” to illegal drugs and that this was “concerning to the Court.”
¶22 The court accordingly adjudicated the children as “abused and neglected” as to Father. The court determined that this was “true by clear and convincing evidence,” and it based this determination on both Father’s partial rule 34(e) response and its finding that Father “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.”
Disposition Hearing
¶23 The court later held a disposition hearing. There, the State directed the court’s attention to the child and family plan that DCFS had submitted. That plan listed several proposed responsibilities for Father, including the requirement that he complete a substance abuse evaluation and submit to random drug testing. The State asked the court to impose those requirements on Father.
¶24 After hearing from Father’s counsel, the court entered its disposition order. In that ruling, the court determined that “all” the parental responsibilities proposed in the child and family plan were warranted, including the requirement that Father complete a substance abuse evaluation and submit to random drug testing. The court also ordered Father to “remain drug and alcohol free” until the court “hear[d] otherwise from [Father’s] substance abuse evaluation.”
¶25 Father timely appealed.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶26 Father first challenges the juvenile court’s determination that the children were abused. It’s somewhat unclear from his brief whether Father’s challenge rests on factual or legal grounds. As explained below, however, we need not decide which challenge Father is making (or, by extension, which standard of review would apply) because, even without the abuse determination, the juvenile court still had jurisdiction to enter disposition orders based on its unchallenged neglect determination.
¶27 Father also challenges the juvenile court’s disposition order, and he does so on two fronts. First, he argues that the disposition order was improper because it was based on an unsupported finding that he “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.” This court “review[s] the juvenile court’s findings of fact for clear error.” In re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 37, 491 P.3d 867 (quotation simplified). And a “finding of fact is clearly erroneous only when, in light of the evidence supporting the finding, it is against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re B.C., 2018 UT App 125, ¶ 2, 428 P.3d 18 (per curiam). Second, Father argues that the court “erred in making a disposition order [that] includ[ed] drug testing, evaluation, and treatment.” “The juvenile court’s decision can be overturned only if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 31, 496 P.3d 58 (quotation simplified).
ANALYSIS
I. Abuse Determination
¶28 Father first challenges the juvenile court’s determination that the children were abused.
¶29 As an initial matter we note that although DCFS’s petition alleged that the children were abused—including an allegation that Father “had hit a child on the back hard enough to leave bruising”—Father’s partial rule 34(e) response only denied the allegation that he “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.” From this alone, we could conclude that Father’s challenge is meritless. But in any event, we need not decide this challenge on its merits because Father has not challenged the court’s separate and independent determination that the children were neglected.
¶30 “Utah’s juvenile courts are creatures of statute, and thus are courts of limited jurisdiction.” In re B.B., 2002 UT App 82, ¶ 12, 45 P.3d 527. “Because they are courts of limited jurisdiction, juvenile courts are allowed to do only what the legislature has expressly authorized.” Id.
¶31 Utah Code section 78A-6-103 defines the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Relevant to this appeal, that section states that a juvenile court “has original jurisdiction over any proceeding concerning . . . a child who is an abused child, neglected child, or dependent child.” Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-103(2)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021). Once jurisdiction is established under that section, “the court may order reasonable conditions to be complied with by a minor’s parents or guardian, a minor’s custodian, or any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings.” Id. § 78A-6-117(2)(q)(i).[3]
¶32 As noted, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as “abused and neglected,” thereby conferring jurisdiction under section 78A-6-103(2)(a). Importantly, jurisdiction could properly be based on either the abuse determination or the neglect determination. See id. § 78A-6-103(2); see also In re S.F., 2012 UT App 10, ¶ 33, 268 P.3d 831 (“Importantly, once a child has been adjudicated as neglected, the juvenile court has continuing jurisdiction over the child . . . .”); cf. In re B.T., 2009 UT App 182, ¶ 10, 214 P.3d 881 (holding that the facts were inadequate “to support a determination of neglect” but remanding “for a finding of dependency”).
¶33 While Father has challenged the abuse determination on appeal, he has not challenged the separate determination that the children were neglected. Because of this, we have no need to decide his challenge to the abuse determination. After all, even if we accepted Father’s arguments about the abuse determination, the unchallenged neglect determination would still provide the juvenile court with jurisdiction, thereby giving the juvenile court authority to “order” Father to comply with “reasonable conditions” following a disposition hearing. Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-117(2)(q)(i). Indeed, Father appears to agree. In his brief, he specifically “clarifie[d] that he is not arguing that he should not be adjudicated and found to be within the jurisdiction of the Court.”
¶34 In light of this concession, it is not clear what Father hopes to gain by challenging the abuse determination. There are perhaps some collateral consequences associated with an abuse determination that do not follow from a neglect determination. But other than a vague (and unsupported) reference to “presumptions that reunification services should not be offered” in cases of abuse, Father has not briefed any such difference. Moreover, Father is not challenging the imposition of any such collateral consequences in this case. Instead, the only relief that Father seeks in this appeal is a reversal of the conditions that were imposed on him in the disposition hearing. Because the unchallenged neglect determination provided the court with jurisdiction to order those conditions, we decline to address Father’s challenge to the court’s abuse determination. See M.F. v. J.F., 2013 UT App 247, ¶ 11, 312 P.3d 946 (recognizing that “[o]nce the juvenile court has adjudicated the child as falling under its jurisdiction, it has ongoing jurisdiction over that child and may make dispositions by court order” (quotation simplified)).
II. Disposition Order
¶35 As noted, the juvenile court’s neglect determination provided it with jurisdiction to “order reasonable conditions to be complied with by [the children’s] parents or guardian, [the children’s] custodian, or any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings.” Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-117(2)(q)(i). Here, after a disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered Father to complete a substance abuse evaluation and submit to random drug testing.
¶36 Father now challenges that order on two fronts. First, he notes that these requirements were predicated on the court’s finding that he “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.” According to Father, that finding was an “abuse of discretion.” And second, Father argues that the order itself was unwarranted because it was not supported by the court’s findings.
A. Finding Related to Illegal Substances
¶37 Father first challenges the court’s finding “related to drugs and paraphernalia.” Though Father’s brief is somewhat unclear on this point, we understand him to be challenging the court’s finding that he “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.”
¶38 As an initial matter, Father suggests that we should review this for an abuse of discretion. This suggestion is misplaced, however, because the ruling in question was a factual determination. See generally In re K.D.N., 2013 UT App 298, ¶ 8, 318 P.3d 768 (“Juvenile courts are required to make comprehensive and detailed factual findings in support of their ultimate conclusions.”). Because it was a factual determination, Father must show that the finding was clearly erroneous. See In re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 37, 491 P.3d 867. And under our accepted standards, a “finding of fact is clearly erroneous only when, in light of the evidence supporting the finding, it is against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re B.C., 2018 UT App 125, ¶ 2, 428 P.3d 18 (per curiam).
¶39 Properly framed, Father’s argument is that this finding was clearly erroneous because there were “no indications or medical assessments of drug ingestion” by Father. But as noted, the juvenile court didn’t directly find that Father used drugs. Rather, it found that Father “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.” And in support of that finding, the court entered a series of subsidiary findings, all of which Father has either conceded or at least failed to successfully challenge on appeal. For example:
· The court found that police “discovered drug paraphernalia including several pipes, tinfoil with heroin residue, a burned spoon, and syringes in a camper on the property where the family lived.” And relatedly, the court also found that Father frequented that trailer to smoke cigarettes. In his brief, Father admits that drug “[p]araphernalia was found in a trailer he had been in and used for smoking.”
· The court found that in February 2021, Father “refused to allow [a DCFS] caseworker to see inside the trailer.” Father does not challenge this finding on appeal.
· The court found that in February 2021, a DCFS investigator asked Father to take a drug test, but that Father declined to take the test. Father has not challenged this finding on appeal, instead simply arguing that this refusal shouldn’t matter because he had previously offered to take a drug test and had allegedly “tested clean” when he took a “test for his employer” on a different occasion.
· The court found that “Mother has stated that she uses heroin with [Father] daily and that he uses approximately a gram a day.” Father does not challenge the court’s finding that Mother said this. Instead, he simply notes that Mother later retracted this claim. But the court acknowledged that Mother had retracted the claim. And even so, the court still found (and thought it significant) that Mother had said that Father used drugs.
· Relatedly, the court found it “concerning” and “disturbing” that Mother had testified “that she gets heroin for [Father], and she gives it to him.” While Father emphasizes Mother’s “lack of credibility,” “we do not disturb [the juvenile court’s] determinations of the witnesses’ credibility because it “is in an advantaged position with respect to the parties and the witnesses.”[4] In re G.D.B., 2019 UT App 29, ¶ 20, 440 P.3d 706 (quotation simplified).
· Finally, the court found that Mother had drug problems of her own. In his brief, Father admits that “there is overwhelming evidence of the mother’s drug use,” including admissions by Mother “that she has a significant drug problem.”
¶40 Again, the finding at issue was that Father “has issues related to the use of illegal substances.” And as the court later explained, this finding was essentially that Father was “way too close” to illegal drugs. The subsidiary findings described above both individually and collectively support this because they show that Father voluntarily placed himself in close proximity to both people who used drugs and to illegal drugs themselves. Father therefore has not shown that this finding was “against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re B.C., 2018 UT App 125, ¶ 2.
B. Drug Testing Requirement
¶41 At the disposition hearing, the court ordered Father to submit to “drug testing, evaluation, and treatment.” Father argues that this order was unwarranted.
¶42 As explained, when a juvenile court has adjudicated a minor child as abused, neglected, or dependent, “the court may order reasonable conditions to be complied with by a minor’s parents or guardian, a minor’s custodian, or any other person who has been made a party to the proceedings.” Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-117(2)(q)(i). Whether a condition is “reasonable” depends on the circumstances of each case. See In re S.A., 2016 UT App 191, ¶ 7, 382 P.3d 642 (per curiam). Helpful considerations include whether the condition is “reasonably related to the juvenile court’s factual finding[s],” “proportionate to the concern raised by” those findings, and “reasonably calculated to serve the best interest of the child.” Id. ¶ 7. Furthermore, we can overturn the juvenile court’s decision only “if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 31, 496 P.3d 58 (quotation simplified).
¶43 Our decision in In re S.A. is illustrative. There, the “juvenile court found that the facts did not establish abuse or neglect but entered an adjudication order stating that the child was dependent as to [the father].” In re S.A., 2016 UT App 191, ¶ 2. In a subsequent disposition order, the court then ordered that the father “complete a domestic violence assessment.” Id. ¶ 5. The father challenged that order on appeal, claiming that he could not be required to complete the assessment “because there was no neglect adjudication” and because “the juvenile court found no fault by” him. Id. We upheld the order on appeal, however,
concluding that it was “reasonably related to the juvenile court’s factual finding that the parents have hit each other on occasion in the presence of the child.” Id. ¶ 7 (quotation simplified). We also concluded that the condition was “proportionate to the concern raised by that finding” and was “reasonably calculated to serve the best interest of the child.” Id.
¶44 Here, Father claims that the court could not require him to submit to drug testing and treatment without first finding that he actually “used drugs” himself. Father argues that such a finding was required by Utah Code section 62A-4a-205, under which “a child and family plan may only include requirements that . . . address findings made by the court.” Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-205(8)(h).
¶45 But while the court didn’t find that there was clear and convincing evidence that Father uses drugs, it did find that “Father is connected to too many people and locations which raises concerns for the Court that he may be abusing substances.” (Emphases added.) And there was ample support for this concern. In addition to its proximity-based findings, the court found that Mother had told both Officer and Investigator that Father used drugs, and it further found that Father had been resistant on at least one occasion to DCFS’s request that he take a drug test.
¶46 As also discussed, the court’s findings showed that Father frequently chose to be around illegal drugs and people who use them. Again, Father commonly associated with both Mother and his friend, both of whom had drug problems; he frequented a trailer on his property in which drug paraphernalia was found; and he was resistant to DCFS’s efforts to look inside that trailer. As noted, this trailer was located on the property where Father lived with the children. And finally, the children’s other caretaker (Mother) has admitted that she has drug problems of her own, and all of this arises against the backdrop of the court’s unchallenged determination that the children were neglected.
¶47 There are obvious dangers associated with advertently or
even inadvertently exposing children to illegal drugs. There are also obvious dangers associated with leaving children in the care of a parent or custodian who is under the influence of illegal drugs. Here, given the reports of Father’s illegal drug use, his ongoing proximity to people who use illegal drugs, his habit of frequenting a place in which drug paraphernalia was later found, and the fact that the children’s other parent had an ongoing drug problem, we have no trouble concluding that the court’s decision to require Father to submit to drug evaluation and testing was “proportionate to the concern raised by” the findings and was “reasonably calculated to serve the best interest” of the neglected and thus vulnerable minor children who were sometimes in Father’s care. In re S.A., 2016 UT App 191, ¶ 7.
¶48 Again, we cannot overturn the juvenile court’s decision unless “it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 31 (quotation simplified). Because the juvenile court considered all the facts and its decision was not “against the clear weight of the evidence,” id. (quotation simplified), we affirm the court’s disposition order.[5]
CONCLUSION
¶49 We have no need to address Father’s challenge to the juvenile court’s abuse determination because, even if Father is correct, the neglect determination independently provided the juvenile court with jurisdiction and the ability to enter disposition orders in the best interest of the children. Moreover, we conclude that the juvenile court’s finding that Father “has issues related to the use of illegal substances” was not clearly erroneous. We further conclude that the juvenile court’s requirement that Father submit to “drug testing, evaluation, and treatment” was reasonable.
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF J.P. AND T.P., PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
T.L.,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Opinion
No. 20210185-CA
Filed December 9, 2021
Fifth District Juvenile Court, Cedar City Department
The Honorable Troy A. Little
No. 1170183
Colleen K. Coebergh, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, John M. Peterson, and
Carol L. C. Verdoia, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE RYAN M. HARRIS authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and JILL M. POHLMAN concurred.
HARRIS, Judge:
¶1 After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court terminated T.L.’s (Mother) parental rights regarding her two children, J.P. and T.P. (collectively, the Children). Mother now appeals, asserting that the court erred by concluding that termination of her parental rights was strictly necessary and in the Children’s best interest. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 While married to her husband (Father), Mother had two children: J.P., a son born in 2013, and T.P., a daughter born in 2016. Mother described J.P. as “difficult to manage because he is autistic,” and stated that he has a history of “aggressive and violent behavior,” which he sometimes expressed toward T.P. Mother’s marriage was “good at first,” but Father eventually became violent and abusive toward both Mother and J.P., and was arrested on one occasion for domestic violence. In 2018, Mother went to live with her parents, taking the Children with her.
¶3 A few months later, J.P. sustained a black eye after Mother’s father (Grandfather) threw a laundry basket at him. Grandfather “has a history of dangerous behavior” and was once arrested and convicted of attempted aggravated assault after discharging a firearm in the presence of the Children during a family dispute. After investigating the laundry basket incident, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) made a supported finding of physical abuse against Grandfather and asked Mother to stop living with her parents; DCFS recommended that she stay at a women’s shelter with the Children, and Mother complied.
¶4 During the stay at the shelter, DCFS again became involved after other residents of the shelter reported that Mother was physically abusing the Children and throwing their meals in the trash as a form of punishment. Following an investigation of these incidents, DCFS made a supported finding of physical abuse against Mother and took the Children into protective custody. The juvenile court later determined that the Children were abused and neglected, and set reunification with Mother as the primary permanency goal.
¶5 The Children were initially placed together with the same foster family. During this time, the foster parents reported thatJ.P. was “physically aggressive, daily, toward[]” T.P. But in some ways, the Children did better in their new environment: T.P. was “excelling” and J.P. showed improvement after weekly therapy, although he continued to sometimes “act[] out aggressively.”
¶6 During this same time period, Mother worked toward reunification by attending therapy and parenting courses, and by securing employment. In recognition of this progress, some nine months after their removal the Children were returned to Mother’s custody for a trial home placement. But Mother still lived with her family, including Grandfather, and for various reasons the home placement failed; this time, DCFS removed the Children “due to concerns of environmental neglect, ongoing insufficient hygiene . . . , and suspicion of sexual reactiveness.”
¶7 Following the failure of the trial home placement, the State and a guardian ad litem (the GAL) appointed to represent the Children’s interests asked the juvenile court to change the permanency goal from reunification to adoption. The court granted that request and terminated reunification services; shortly thereafter, the State filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children.[1]
¶8 Meanwhile, J.P. was continuing to act aggressively toward T.P. and others, and DCFS eventually found it necessary to separate the Children, and place them with different foster families, in order to protect T.P. Some time later, Mother expressed “concern” about the separation to the juvenile court, but the court allowed it, crediting the GAL’s account that J.P.’s behavior improved after the Children were separated.
¶9 The case proceeded to trial on the State’s petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. During trial, the State called eight witnesses in support of its case, including Mother, all the foster parents, certain DCFS caseworkers, and a peer parent advisor. In addition, the GAL addressed the court and proffered certain statements made by the Children. During closing argument, Mother’s attorney did not contest the fact that statutory grounds existed for termination of Mother’s parental rights, and acknowledged that “maybe returning the [Children] to [Mother’s familial] home was not the best idea.” Mother’s attorney also recognized that J.P. had, at times, been violent and aggressive toward T.P., and agreed with the State that “these kids could not be together” in foster care. But Mother’s attorney argued that, nevertheless, termination of Mother’s parental rights was not in the Children’s best interest, which he argued could best be served by returning them, together, to Mother’s care. However, at no point did counsel argue, as an alternative to termination, that the court should grant permanent custody and guardianship to relatives or foster families.
¶10 After trial, the court issued a detailed written ruling terminating Mother’s parental rights. The court found that six statutory grounds for termination existed, including abuse and neglect. And the court concluded that it was in the Children’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated.
¶11 As part of its best-interest analysis, the court considered whether termination of Mother’s parental rights was “strictly necessary,” and it assessed whether other feasible options, short of termination, existed that would adequately address the situation, but ultimately concluded that termination was strictly necessary. The court noted that, at trial, it had been presented with only two options: terminating Mother’s parental rights, or returning the Children to Mother’s care. Nonetheless, the court proceeded to consider other potential options; in particular, the court examined at length whether a permanent guardianship with a relative or with a foster family would be appropriate.
With regard to a kinship placement, the court noted that the only known relatives were Mother’s family members, including Grandfather, who all lived in the same household, and the court concluded that, in light of the situation, including Grandfather’s history of violence, such a placement would be inappropriate. And with regard to long-term guardianships with foster families, the court offered its view that such arrangements tend to work well only “where the child has a healthy relationship with both the guardian and the parent” and “the guardian and parent are willing to work together to preserve that parent-child relationship.” In this case, the foster families had “little to no relationship” with Mother. The court also noted that the Children were “very young,” and concluded that “[t]hey both need stability and permanency” that could best be found in an adoption arrangement rather than in a guardianship arrangement. After an extensive analysis, the court determined that neither a kinship placement nor a long-term guardianship with foster families was an appropriate option in this case, and that adoption following termination of parental rights was the option most in keeping with the Children’s best interest. Based on those findings and conclusions, the court terminated Mother’s parental rights.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶12 Mother now appeals from that order, and challenges the juvenile court’s ruling that termination of her parental rights was strictly necessary and in the Children’s best interest. “Whether the juvenile court correctly concluded there was no feasible alternative to terminating Mother’s . . . parental rights is a mixed question of fact and law,” and “we review the juvenile court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law for correctness, affording the court some discretion in applying the law to the facts.” See In re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 37, 491 P.3d 867 (quotation simplified); see also In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶ 24, 463 P.3d 66 (“We afford a juvenile court’s best-interest decision a high degree of deference, reversing only for clear error, which we find when the result is against the clear weight of the evidence or leaves us with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made . . . .” (quotation simplified)).
ANALYSIS
¶13 A court may terminate parental rights only after making two necessary findings. In re N.K., 2020 UT App 26, ¶ 21, 461 P.3d 1116. First, the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that at least one statutory ground for termination exists. See In re T.E., 2011 UT 51, ¶ 17, 266 P.3d 739; see also Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021). “Second, the court must find that termination of the parent’s rights is in the best interest[] of the child.” In re N.K., 2020 UT App 26, ¶ 21 (quotation simplified); see also Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(12) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021).
¶14 The best interest of the child is “of paramount importance in determining whether termination of parental rights shall be ordered.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(12)(a). Because any number of factors can have bearing on the child, the best-interest inquiry is a broad-ranging, “holistic examination of all the relevant circumstances that might affect a child’s situation.” In re H.F., 2019 UT App 204, ¶ 14, 455 P.3d 1098 (quotation simplified). And this requires evaluating “the unique and specific conditions” experienced by the child, from the child’s perspective. In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶ 37, 463 P.3d 66. While courts have identified factors relevant to the best-interest determination, the list is non-exhaustive. See id. (“The breadth of this subjective assessment based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the child has never been diminished . . . .” (quotation simplified)); see also In re H.F., 2019 UT App 204, ¶ 14 (listing possible factors to consider in evaluating a child’s best interest).
¶15 In addition, our legislature has directed that parental rights may be terminated only when that outcome is “strictly necessary” from “the child’s point of view.” See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(1); see also id. § 80-4-104(12)(b). Our supreme court has interpreted this instruction as requiring that termination “be strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest,” and has held that the “strictly necessary” inquiry is to be conducted “as part of” the best-interest inquiry. In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶¶ 60, 76, 472 P.3d 827. Termination is “strictly necessary” only when, after exploring possible placements for the child, the juvenile court concludes that no “other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family, short of imposing the ultimate remedy of terminating the parent’s rights.” Id. ¶ 67 (quotation simplified). “If the child can be equally protected and benefited by an option other than termination, termination is not strictly necessary.” Id. ¶ 66.
¶16 In this case, after finding that six different statutory grounds for termination existed and that termination was in the Children’s best interest, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights. As noted, this case is not about the statutory grounds for termination—Mother did not contest the presence of statutory grounds at trial, and does not appeal the court’s findings in that regard. But Mother does challenge the court’s conclusion that termination of her parental rights was in the Children’s best interest and, in so doing, asks us to consider two issues. First, Mother argues that the court, in evaluating best interest, failed to adequately consider the customary preference for keeping siblings together, and failed to consider the impact that termination would have on the sibling bond.[2] Second, Mother takes issue with the court’s conclusion that terminating her rights was strictly necessary to promote the Children’s best interest; specifically, she contends the court did not adequately address whether permanent guardianship with nonrelatives presented a viable option. We discuss each argument in turn.
¶17 Among the many “factors involved in a best-interest[] determination” is consideration of whether to “keep[] siblings together.” See In re O.C., 2005 UT App 563, ¶ 22, 127 P.3d 1286 (quotation simplified); cf. Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-409(3)(b) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021) (stating that, in making permanency decisions, juvenile courts should “attempt to keep the minor’s sibling group together” where “practicable” and where that outcome is “in accordance with the best interest of the minor”). Mother contends that the court “did not appropriately weigh and consider the negative impact that termination of parental rights of the mother had on the sibling bond.” We disagree.
¶18 In making its best-interest determination, the juvenile court quite clearly evaluated the impact termination would have on the Children’s sibling relationship. In its findings, the court found it “necessary to address” the fact that the Children were “not placed together in the same adoptive home,” and noted at the outset of its analysis the general preference for the “sibling group [to] stay together.” But the court also noted that “this is a particularly unique situation wherein [J.P.] has a history of aggressive and violent behavior toward[] [T.P.],” and would “direct his anger at [T.P.] by hitting, kicking, and biting her.” The court referenced testimony by caseworkers, foster parents, and a mental health evaluator who had each “witnessed [J.P.’s] aggression” toward T.P., and the court referred to J.P.’s aggression as a “safety risk” to T.P. And in particular, the court addressed Mother’s argument that she could do better than the foster parents had done in this regard, offering its view that Mother “seem[ed] unaware of the severity of [J.P.’s] aggression” toward T.P. and that Mother was “minimizing” J.P.’s aggressive behavior. After considering the evidence, the court expressly found that “it is not practicable and it is not in the Children’s best interest to keep” them together.
¶19 In light of these detailed findings and conclusions, it is simply not accurate to suggest that the juvenile court did not consider the “sibling bond” factor as part of its best-interest analysis. The court clearly did consider it. Mother’s complaint, properly viewed, is not that the court did not consider the issue; rather, Mother’s dissatisfaction lies with the weight the court gave her perspective, and with the court’s ultimate conclusion. We have often stated that “it is not within our purview to engage in a reweighing of the evidence” heard by a court following a trial, even in cases in which “the evidence could also have supported” an alternative outcome. See Shuman v. Shuman, 2017 UT App 192, ¶¶ 9–10, 406 P.3d 258 (quotation simplified). Where a juvenile court has analyzed an issue following an evidentiary hearing, and has made factual findings and legal conclusions that are supported by the evidence and the law, we will not overturn those findings and conclusions, even if a different judge might have weighed the evidence in a different way. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435 (stating that, when a “foundation for” a juvenile court’s “decision exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not engage in a reweighing of the evidence”); see also In re J.E.G., 2020 UT App 94, ¶ 24, 468 P.3d 1048 (“Given the factfinder’s advantaged position in observing the witnesses firsthand, it is the factfinder’s responsibility, not the appellate court’s, to weigh [the] evidence and make a determination of fact.” (quotation simplified)). Here, the court’s analysis regarding the importance of the Children’s sibling bond was supported by the evidence presented at trial, and we will not engage in a reweighing of that evidence on appeal. On that basis, we reject Mother’s argument that the juvenile court, in evaluating best interest, failed to adequately consider and weigh the “sibling bond” factor.
¶20 Next, Mother asserts that the juvenile court, as part of its “strictly necessary” assessment, “did not appropriately consider permanent custody and guardianship” of the Children with nonrelatives. We reject this argument for similar reasons: the court did in fact consider this issue, and Mother’s disagreement with the court’s conclusion is not grounds for reversal.
¶21 In this case, the juvenile court devoted eight paragraphs of its analysis to this issue, despite the fact that Mother, at trial, did not specifically ask the court to assess permanent guardianship options with nonrelatives.[3] The court noted, at the outset of its analysis, that the “only options presented at trial from the parties were to terminate Mother’s parental rights or return the Children” to Mother. But despite the fact that the parties did not advance other alternatives, the court explored them anyway. In particular, the court noted that, “another option, short of termination,” was to place the Children in a permanent guardianship with a relative. In this regard, the court noted that “DCFS made diligent efforts to locate possible” kinship placements, but did so “without success,” because “the only known kin” were Mother’s relatives, including Grandfather, who all lived together in the same household, a placement that had already proved itself inappropriate. Accordingly, the court concluded that a permanent guardianship with a relative “is not an option in this case.”
¶22 The court then proceeded to assess whether a long-term guardianship with a nonrelative was a viable option. The court noted that “the obvious choice” for such a placement “would be a possible guardianship placement with the current” foster families. But the court offered its view that long-term guardianship arrangements are “typically only in a child’s best interest where the guardians and the parent have a working, relatively healthy relationship” in which they are both “willing to work together to preserve [the] parent-child relationship,” and “where the child has a healthy relationship with both the guardian and the parent.” The court also opined that long-term guardianships work best with older children who have “the developmental maturity to recognize the guardian in their role and the parent in their role,” and “can distinguish between the two.” The court found that none of these conditions were present here: the foster families had “little to no relationship whatsoever with Mother,” and the Children were “still very young” and needed “stability and permanency” and “a family they can call their own without further changes.” Accordingly, the court concluded that a long-term guardianship with a nonrelative did “not promote [the Children’s] best interest or welfare,” and that “[h]aving a permanent family unit [would] meet their best interest far better than a guardianship.”
¶23 In light of the thorough treatment the juvenile court gave the issue, Mother’s complaint that the court “did not appropriately consider” permanent guardianship options is unavailing. In this context as well, Mother is simply dissatisfied with the manner in which the juvenile court weighed the evidence and, as noted, this complaint has no traction on appeal. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12; cf. State v. Littlejohn, 2021 UT App 73, ¶ 28, 496 P.3d 726 (stating that, where “it is apparent . . . that [the court] did consider the information” the appellant claimed it did not consider, the appellant’s complaint was merely “that the court failed to give that information the weight [the appellant] believes it should have been given,” and concluding that this “argument simply has no traction on appeal”). On this basis, we reject Mother’s argument that the court failed to adequately consider potential long-term guardianship options with nonrelatives.
CONCLUSION
¶24 The juvenile court appropriately considered whether to keep the Children together, and whether long-term guardianship options existed short of termination. For the reasons stated, we reject Mother’s challenges to the juvenile court’s best-interest determination, and affirm the court’s order of termination.
——————————————————
[1] The State’s petition also asked the court to terminate Father’s parental rights, which the court eventually did. Father’s parental rights are not at issue in this appeal.
[2] The State asserts that Mother did not properly preserve this argument for appellate review. The State’s contention is not particularly persuasive. Indeed, at trial, although acknowledging that the Children needed to be separated if they remained in foster care, Mother’s attorney argued that the Children could be kept together if they were returned to Mother’s care, and advanced this as a reason not to terminate. But we need not discuss preservation further here because, in this case, the issue “can easily be resolved in favor of the party asserting that the claim was not preserved,” and therefore we elect to simply address the claim on its merits. See State v. Kitches, 2021 UT App 24, ¶ 28, 484 P.3d 415.
[3] For this reason, the State argues that Mother did not preserve this issue for our review. We acknowledge the State’s point that a litigant, if it wants a court to afford specific relief, should ask for that relief directly. But as the State acknowledges, “Utah law places an affirmative onus” on juvenile courts to “consider reasonable alternatives to termination.” (Citing In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 74, 472 P.3d 827.) In this situation, juvenile courts have an independent obligation, imposed by statute, to assess whether termination is strictly necessary. See In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 74 (explaining that the juvenile court is “require[d] . . . to find, on the record, that no other option can achieve the same welfare and best interest for the child”); see also Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021). While the court’s assessment in this regard is of course guided by the parties’ arguments and specific requests for relief, a juvenile court must always make a finding, prior to terminating a parent’s rights, that termination is strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest. In this case, we commend the juvenile court for its thorough analysis of the issue, even in the absence of any specific request by Mother for imposition of a long-term guardianship with nonrelatives.
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF J.P. AND T.P., PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
T.L., Appellant, v. STATE OF UTAH, Appellee.
Opinion
No. 20210185-CA
Filed December 9, 2021
Fifth District Juvenile Court, Cedar City Department
The Honorable Troy A. Little
No. 1170183
Colleen K. Coebergh, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, John M. Peterson, and Carol L. C. Verdoia, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE RYAN M. HARRIS authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and JILL M. POHLMAN concurred.
HARRIS, Judge:
¶1After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the juvenile courtterminated T.L.’s (Mother) parental rights regarding her two children, J.P. and T.P. (collectively, the Children). Mother now appeals, asserting that the court erred by concluding that termination of her parental rights was strictly necessary and in the Children’s best interest. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2While married to her husband (Father), Mother had two children: J.P., a son born in 2013, and T.P., a daughter born in 2016. Mother described J.P. as “difficult to manage because he is autistic,” and stated that he has a history of “aggressive and violent behavior,” which he sometimes expressed toward T.P. Mother’s marriage was “good at first,” but Father eventually became violent and abusive toward both Mother and J.P., and was arrested on one occasion for domestic violence. In 2018, Mother went to live with her parents, taking the Children with her.
¶3A few months later, J.P. sustained a black eye after Mother’s father (Grandfather) threw a laundry basket at him. Grandfather “has a history of dangerous behavior” and was once arrested and convicted of attempted aggravated assault after discharging a firearm in the presence of the Children during a family dispute. After investigating the laundry basket incident, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) made a supported finding of physical abuse against Grandfather and asked Mother to stop living with her parents; DCFS recommended that she stay at a women’s shelter with the Children, and Mother complied.
¶4During the stay at the shelter, DCFS again became involved after other residents of the shelter reported that Mother was physically abusing the Children and throwing their meals in the trash as a form of punishment. Following an investigation of these incidents, DCFS made a supported finding of physical abuse against Mother and took the Children into protective custody. The juvenile court later determined that the Children were abused and neglected, and set reunification with Mother as the primary permanency goal.
¶5The Children were initially placed together with the same foster family. During this time, the foster parents reported thatJ.P. was “physically aggressive, daily, toward[]” T.P. But in some ways, the Children did better in their new environment: T.P. was “excelling” and J.P. showed improvement after weekly therapy, although he continued to sometimes “act[] out aggressively.”
¶6 During this same time period, Mother worked toward reunification by attending therapy and parenting courses, and by securing employment. In recognition of this progress, some nine months after their removal the Children were returned to Mother’s custody for a trial home placement. But Mother still lived with her family, including Grandfather, and for various reasons the home placement failed; this time, DCFS removed the Children “due to concerns of environmental neglect, ongoing insufficient hygiene . . . , and suspicion of sexual reactiveness.”
¶7Following the failure of the trial home placement, the State and a guardian ad litem (the GAL) appointed to represent the Children’s interests asked the juvenile court to change the permanency goal from reunification to adoption. The court granted that request and terminated reunification services; shortly thereafter, the State filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children.1
¶8Meanwhile, J.P. was continuing to act aggressively toward T.P. and others, and DCFS eventually found it necessary to separate the Children, and place them with different foster families, in order to protect T.P. Some time later, Mother expressed “concern” about the separation to the juvenile court, but the court allowed it, crediting the GAL’s account that J.P.’s behavior improved after the Children were separated.
¶9The case proceeded to trial on the State’s petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. During trial, the State called eight witnesses in support of its case, including Mother, all the foster parents, certain DCFS caseworkers, and a peer parent advisor. In addition, the GAL addressed the court and proffered certain statements made by the Children. During closing argument, Mother’s attorney did not contest the fact that statutory grounds existed for termination of Mother’s parental rights, and acknowledged that “maybe returning the [Children] to [Mother’s familial] home was not the best idea.” Mother’s attorney also recognized that J.P. had, at times, been violent and aggressive toward T.P., and agreed with the State that “these kids could not be together” in foster care. But Mother’s attorney argued that, nevertheless, termination of Mother’s parental rights was not in the Children’s best interest, which he argued could best be served by returning them, together, to Mother’s care. However, at no point did counsel argue, as an alternative to termination, that the court should grant permanent custody and guardianship to relatives or foster families.
¶10 After trial, the court issued a detailed written ruling terminating Mother’s parental rights. The court found that six statutory grounds for termination existed, including abuse and neglect. And the court concluded that it was in the Children’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated.
¶11 As part of its best-interest analysis, the court considered whether termination of Mother’s parental rights was “strictly necessary,” and it assessed whether other feasible options, short of termination, existed that would adequately address the situation, but ultimately concluded that termination was strictly necessary. The court noted that, at trial, it had been presented with only two options: terminating Mother’s parental rights, or returning the Children to Mother’s care. Nonetheless, the court proceeded to consider other potential options; in particular, the court examined at length whether a permanent guardianship with a relative or with a foster family would be appropriate.
With regard to a kinship placement, the court noted that the only known relatives were Mother’s family members, including Grandfather, who all lived in the same household, and the court concluded that, in light of the situation, including Grandfather’s history of violence, such a placement would be inappropriate. And with regard to long-term guardianships with foster families, the court offered its view that such arrangements tend to work well only “where the child has a healthy relationship with both the guardian and the parent” and “the guardian and parent are willing to work together to preserve that parent-child relationship.” In this case, the foster families had “little to no relationship” with Mother. The court also noted that the Children were “very young,” and concluded that “[t]hey both need stability and permanency” that could best be found in an adoption arrangement rather than in a guardianship arrangement. After an extensive analysis, the court determined that neither a kinship placement nor a long-term guardianship with foster families was an appropriate option in this case, and that adoption following termination of parental rights was the option most in keeping with the Children’s best interest. Based on those findings and conclusions, the court terminated Mother’s parental rights.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶12 Mother now appeals from that order, and challenges the juvenile court’s ruling that termination of her parental rights was strictly necessary and in the Children’s best interest. “Whether the juvenile court correctly concluded there was no feasible alternative to terminating Mother’s . . . parental rights is a mixed question of fact and law,” and “we review the juvenile court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law for correctness, affording the court some discretion in applying the law to the facts.” See In re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 37, 491 P.3d 867 (quotation simplified); see also In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶ 24, 463 P.3d 66 (“We afford a juvenile court’s best-interest decision ahigh degree of deference, reversing only for clear error, which we find when the result is against the clear weight of the evidence or leaves us with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made . . . .” (quotation simplified)).
ANALYSIS
¶13 A court may terminate parental rights only after making two necessary findings. In re N.K., 2020 UT App 26, ¶ 21, 461 P.3d 1116. First, the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that at least one statutory ground for termination exists. See In re T.E., 2011 UT 51, ¶ 17, 266 P.3d 739; see also Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021). “Second, the court must find that termination of the parent’s rights is in the best interest[] of the child.” In re N.K., 2020 UT App 26, ¶ 21 (quotation simplified); see also Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(12) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021).
¶14The best interest of the child is “of paramount importance in determining whether termination of parental rights shall be ordered.” Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-104(12)(a). Because any number of factors can have bearing on the child, the best-interest inquiry is a broad-ranging, “holistic examination of all the relevant circumstances that might affect a child’s situation.” In re H.F., 2019 UT App 204, ¶ 14, 455 P.3d 1098 (quotation simplified). And this requires evaluating “the unique and specific conditions” experienced by the child, from the child’s perspective. In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶ 37, 463 P.3d 66. While courts have identified factors relevant to the best-interest determination, the list is non-exhaustive. See id. (“The breadth of this subjective assessment based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the child has never been diminished . . . .” (quotation simplified)); see also In re H.F., 2019 UT App 204, ¶ 14 (listing possible factors to consider in evaluating a child’s best interest).
¶15 In addition, our legislature has directed that parental rights may be terminated only when that outcome is “strictly necessary” from “the child’s point of view.” See Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-301(1); see also id. § 80-4-104(12)(b). Our supreme court has interpreted this instruction as requiring that termination “be strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest,” and has held that the “strictly necessary” inquiry is to be conducted “as part of” the best-interest inquiry. In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶¶ 60, 76, 472 P.3d 827. Termination is “strictly necessary” only when, after exploring possible placements for the child, the juvenile court concludes that no “other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family, short of imposing the ultimate remedy of terminating the parent’s rights.” Id. ¶ 67 (quotation simplified). “If the child can be equally protected and benefited by an option other than termination, termination is not strictly necessary.” Id. ¶ 66.
¶16 In this case, after finding that six different statutory grounds for termination existed and that termination was in the Children’s best interest, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights. As noted, this case is not about the statutory grounds for termination—Mother did not contest the presence of statutory grounds at trial, and does not appeal the court’s findings in that regard. But Mother does challenge the court’s conclusion that termination of her parental rights was in the Children’s best interest and, in so doing, asks us to consider two issues. First, Mother argues that the court, in evaluating best interest, failed to adequately consider the customary preference for keeping siblings together, and failed to consider the impact that termination would have on the sibling bond.2 Second,Mother takes issue with the court’s conclusion that terminating her rights was strictly necessary to promote the Children’s best interest; specifically, she contends the court did not adequately address whether permanent guardianship with nonrelatives presented a viable option. We discuss each argument in turn.
¶17 Among the many “factors involved in a best-interest[] determination” is consideration of whether to “keep[] siblings together.” See In re O.C., 2005 UT App 563, ¶ 22, 127 P.3d 1286 (quotation simplified); cf. Utah Code Ann. § 80-3-409(3)(b) (LexisNexis Supp. 2021) (stating that, in making permanency decisions, juvenile courts should “attempt to keep the minor’s sibling group together” where “practicable” and where that outcome is “in accordance with the best interest of the minor”). Mother contends that the court “did not appropriately weigh and consider the negative impact that termination of parental rights of the mother had on the sibling bond.” We disagree.
¶18 In making its best-interest determination, the juvenile court quite clearly evaluated the impact termination would have on the Children’s sibling relationship. In its findings, the court found it “necessary to address” the fact that the Children were “not placed together in the same adoptive home,” and noted at the outset of its analysis the general preference for the “sibling group [to] stay together.” But the court also noted that “this is a particularly unique situation wherein [J.P.] has a history of aggressive and violent behavior toward[] [T.P.],” and would“direct his anger at [T.P.] by hitting, kicking, and biting her.” The court referenced testimony by caseworkers, foster parents, and a mental health evaluator who had each “witnessed [J.P.’s] aggression” toward T.P., and the court referred to J.P.’s aggression as a “safety risk” to T.P. And in particular, the court addressed Mother’s argument that she could do better than the foster parents had done in this regard, offering its view that Mother “seem[ed] unaware of the severity of [J.P.’s] aggression” toward T.P. and that Mother was “minimizing” J.P.’s aggressive behavior. After considering the evidence, the court expressly found that “it is not practicable and it is not in the Children’s best interest to keep” them together.
¶19 In light of these detailed findings and conclusions, it is simply not accurate to suggest that the juvenile court did not consider the “sibling bond” factor as part of its best-interest analysis. The court clearly did consider it. Mother’s complaint, properly viewed, is not that the court did not consider the issue; rather, Mother’s dissatisfaction lies with the weight the court gave her perspective, and with the court’s ultimate conclusion. We have often stated that “it is not within our purview to engage in a reweighing of the evidence” heard by a court following a trial, even in cases in which “the evidence could also have supported” an alternative outcome. See Shuman v. Shuman, 2017 UT App 192, ¶¶ 9–10, 406 P.3d 258 (quotation simplified). Where a juvenile court has analyzed an issue following an evidentiary hearing, and has made factual findings and legal conclusions that are supported by the evidence and the law, we will not overturn those findings and conclusions, even if a different judge might have weighed the evidence in a different way. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435 (stating that, when a “foundation for” a juvenile court’s “decision exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not engage in a reweighing of the evidence”); see also In re J.E.G., 2020 UT App 94, ¶ 24, 468 P.3d 1048 (“Given the factfinder’s advantaged position in observing the witnesses firsthand, it is the factfinder’s responsibility, not the appellate court’s, to weigh [the] evidenceand make a determination of fact.” (quotation simplified)). Here, the court’s analysis regarding the importance of the Children’s sibling bond was supported by the evidence presented at trial, and we will not engage in a reweighing of that evidence on appeal. On that basis, we reject Mother’s argument that the juvenile court, in evaluating best interest, failed to adequately consider and weigh the “sibling bond” factor.
¶20Next, Mother asserts that the juvenile court, as part of its “strictly necessary” assessment, “did not appropriately consider permanent custody and guardianship” of the Children with nonrelatives. We reject this argument for similar reasons: the court did in fact consider this issue, and Mother’s disagreement with the court’s conclusion is not grounds for reversal.
¶21In this case, the juvenile court devoted eight paragraphs of its analysis to this issue, despite the fact that Mother, at trial, did not specifically ask the court to assess permanent guardianship options with nonrelatives.3 The court noted, at theoutset of its analysis, that the “only options presented at trial from the parties were to terminate Mother’s parental rights or return the Children” to Mother. But despite the fact that the parties did not advance other alternatives, the court explored them anyway. In particular, the court noted that, “another option, short of termination,” was to place the Children in a permanent guardianship with a relative. In this regard, the court noted that “DCFS made diligent efforts to locate possible” kinship placements, but did so “without success,” because “the only known kin” were Mother’s relatives, including Grandfather, who all lived together in the same household, a placement that had already proved itself inappropriate. Accordingly, the court concluded that a permanent guardianship with a relative “is not an option in this case.”
¶22 The court then proceeded to assess whether a long-term guardianship with a nonrelative was a viable option. The court noted that “the obvious choice” for such a placement “would be a possible guardianship placement with the current” foster families. But the court offered its view that long-term guardianship arrangements are “typically only in a child’s best interest where the guardians and the parent have a working, relatively healthy relationship” in which they are both “willing to work together to preserve [the] parent-child relationship,” and “where the child has a healthy relationship with both the guardian and the parent.” The court also opined that long-term guardianships work best with older children who have “the developmental maturity to recognize the guardian in their role and the parent in their role,” and “can distinguish between thetwo.” The court found that none of these conditions were present here: the foster families had “little to no relationship whatsoever with Mother,” and the Children were “still very young” and needed “stability and permanency” and “a family they can call their own without further changes.” Accordingly, the court concluded that a long-term guardianship with a nonrelative did “not promote [the Children’s] best interest or welfare,” and that “[h]aving a permanent family unit [would] meet their best interest far better than a guardianship.”
¶23In light of the thorough treatment the juvenile court gavethe issue, Mother’s complaint that the court “did not appropriately consider” permanent guardianship options is unavailing. In this context as well, Mother is simply dissatisfied with the manner in which the juvenile court weighed the evidence and, as noted, this complaint has no traction on appeal. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12; cf. State v. Littlejohn, 2021 UT App 73, ¶ 28, 496 P.3d 726 (stating that, where “it is apparent . . . that [the court] did consider the information” the appellant claimed it did not consider, the appellant’s complaint was merely “that the court failed to give that information the weight [the appellant] believes it should have been given,” and concluding that this “argument simply has no traction on appeal”). On this basis, we reject Mother’s argument that the court failed to adequately consider potential long-term guardianship options with nonrelatives.
CONCLUSION
¶24 The juvenile court appropriately considered whether to keep the Children together, and whether long-term guardianship options existed short of termination. For the reasons stated, we reject Mother’s challenges to the juvenile court’s best-interest determination, and affirm the court’s order of termination.
2020 UT App 50
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF A.T., J.T., AND K.B., PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
K.B., Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH, Appellee.
Opinion
No. 20190591-CA
Filed March 26, 2020
Fourth District Juvenile Court, Provo Department
The Honorable Suchada P. Bazzelle
No. 1160859
Daniel H. Shen and Margaret P. Lindsay, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M. Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE RYAN M. HARRIS authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and KATE APPLEBY concurred.
HARRIS, Judge:
¶1 After eight-year-old A.T. called authorities to report that her mother (Appellant K.B., herein referred to as Mother) had overdosed on drugs, the State of Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) took custody of A.T. and her brother J.T. (the Children) and placed them—at least temporarily—with their biological father (Father). After attempting for eight months to reunify the Children with Mother, the juvenile court decided to terminate reunification services and award Father permanent custody and guardianship of the Children. In making its decision, the court relied heavily on a principle of “parental presumption.” That principle, as articulated by the juvenile court, does not apply in this case, and therefore the court incorrectly relied upon it. And given some of the statements the court made in arriving at its decision, we are not convinced that the court would have made the same decision, at least at that time, had it not so heavily relied on the parental presumption. Accordingly, we vacate the juvenile court’s order and remand this case for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Mother and Father divorced in December 2013. Following the divorce, Mother was awarded sole custody of the Children; at the time, A.T. was three years old and J.T. was two. Several months later, in May 2014, Mother married Stepfather, and about a year later gave birth to a third child, whose initials (like Mother’s) are also K.B. (Brother).
¶3 On June 21, 2018, Mother overdosed on an unknown substance. Both of the Children were in the house at the time, and A.T.—who was then eight years old—called 911. Mother was transported to the hospital and given life-saving treatment, though she refused to tell medical or law-enforcement personnel what substance she had overdosed on. Additionally, Mother refused to provide names and contact information for additional caregivers for the Children, prompting law enforcement to contact DCFS to take emergency physical custody of the children. Shortly thereafter, Father contacted DCFS, which later placed the Children with Father on a temporary basis.
¶4 DCFS’s petition for custody of the Children, filed with the juvenile court on the day after Mother’s overdose and amended a few weeks later, sought abuse and neglect findings as to Mother and a dependency finding as to Father.[1] At adjudication hearings held early in the case, the juvenile court found the Children to be dependent as to Father and neglected as to Mother. Neither parent has, at any point, contested those findings. After adjudication, the court kept the Children in DCFS custody and placed them with Father on a temporary basis. The court set a permanency goal of reunification with Mother, with a concurrent plan of “permanent custody and guardianship with a relative,” for which Father would be “first in line,” and ordered that Mother receive reunification services pursuant to a child and family plan.
¶5 As part of that child and family plan, the court ordered Mother to, among other things, complete mental health and substance abuse assessments in a timely manner, including following all recommendations of those assessments; maintain stable and appropriate housing; and maintain a legitimate means of financially supporting her children. Finally, the court warned Mother that failure to comply with its order could result in termination of reunification services, a change in the permanency goal, or even termination of parental rights.
¶6 Over the course of the next few months, the court held two review hearings to learn how Mother was doing with her reunification efforts. At those hearings, DCFS reported that Mother was doing quite well with the substance abuse side of the reunification plan—she not only had completed her assessment, but also had completed drug treatment, and her drug tests had come back clean. Mother also was consistent with her in-person visits with the Children, though she was inconsistent with telephonic visitation. However, even after eight months, Mother had not found acceptable housing, had not found suitable employment, and had not yet completed a mental health assessment, let alone any treatment or counseling.
¶7 In February 2019, DCFS—eventually joined by the guardian ad litem (GAL)—asked the juvenile court to terminate reunification services, given Mother’s lack of complete compliance with the plan. At the hearing on DCFS’s motion, Mother pointed out that she was in compliance with a great many of the plan’s requirements, and that she was excelling with regard to the substance abuse aspects of it. She also asked the juvenile court to afford her additional time to complete the remaining items, including the mental health assessment, and represented to the court that she could at least come close to full compliance with the plan, given additional time. The court rejected these arguments, and granted DCFS’s motion to terminate reunification services at the eight-month mark.
¶8 In making its ruling, the juvenile court was heavily influenced by its perception of the “parental presumption,” a legal principle discussed more fully below and which was first introduced into our jurisprudence by our supreme court in Hutchison v. Hutchison, 649 P.2d 38 (Utah 1982). No party had mentioned the parental presumption in briefing prior to the hearing. The court began its oral ruling by referencing the parental presumption, stating that in this case there had been “a neglect finding against the mother, which does rebut the parental presumption in favor of the mother,” but stating that the dependency finding against Father did not rebut his parental presumption, because it was “a no fault finding.” Thus, the court framed the issue like this: “we have one parent whose parental presumption is rebutted and one whose isn’t.” The court went on to clarify that “just from a legal standpoint, the father’s claims are superior to anybody else’s claims in the courtroom,” and that the court did not “have any findings against him that would rebut that standing.” Against that backdrop, the juvenile court then transitioned to a discussion of Mother’s compliance with the reunification plan, stating as follows:
Nothing entitles [Mother] to a full twelve months [of reunification services], and on that issue . . . I think if I had a neglect finding against [Father] or we didn’t have a dad, we’d probably keep working at [Mother’s reunification goal]; but that’s not where we are. I have a father with an unrebutted presumption who wants custody.
¶9 The juvenile court then looked specifically to Mother’s non-compliance with the plan, stating that “[w]e have been in progress for eight months and [Mother] has done some things, but she’s lacking at this point some pretty important parts,” including housing and employment. The juvenile court also noted that Mother had not completed even a mental health assessment, let alone any treatment, and that her failure to complete the assessment within the first eight months meant that she likely would not be able to complete the necessary mental health treatment within the twelve-month period mandated by statute, absent exceptional circumstances, for completion of reunification services. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-314(6) (LexisNexis Supp. 2019). After considering these facts, the juvenile court summed up its ruling:
By the time [Mother] gets [a mental health] assessment . . . I just don’t think it’s going to make that much of a difference at this point. When I weigh that against the father’s superior claim for these children . . . I think that legally I need to terminate reunification services.
¶10 Following the hearing, the juvenile court memorialized its holding in a written order, which noted that “we have one parent whose parental presumption is rebutted and one parent whose parental presumption is unrebutted,” as well as that “[Mother] has not started with her mental health assessment and this . . . is one of the longest running part[s] of this reunification process,” and that even “[i]f this Court were to give her a full 12 months” to complete the plan, “there just isn’t enough time left.” The court ordered reunification services terminated, and ordered that the Children be placed in the “permanent physical and legal custody” of Father, with Mother to receive periodic visitation.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶11 Mother now appeals from the juvenile court’s order. Mother’s chief argument is that the juvenile court committed legal error by misconstruing the parental presumption; Mother asserts that this error influenced the court’s decision to terminate her reunification services.[2] Mother’s challenge to the juvenile court’s application of the law, including its interpretation of the parental presumption, presents a legal issue, which we review for correctness.[3] In re F.L., 2015 UT App 224, ¶ 10, 359 P.3d 693.
Because we conclude that the juvenile court misapplied the parental presumption, we must then evaluate the argument, made by the GAL and the State, that any error was harmless. The concept of harmless error is applicable to juvenile court decisions. See, e.g., In re W.A., 2002 UT 127, ¶ 36 n.11, 63 P.3d 607; In re B.C., 2018 UT App 125, ¶ 6, 428 P.3d 18; see also Utah R. Juv. P. 2(a) (stating that “the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply” to juvenile court proceedings involving “neglect, abuse, [or] dependency,” unless the civil rules are inconsistent with the juvenile rules); Utah R. Civ. P. 61 (“No error or defect in any ruling or order . . . is ground for granting a new trial or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice”). An error is harmless if it is “sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” In re W.A., 2002 UT 127, ¶ 36 n.11 (quotation simplified).
ANALYSIS
I
¶12 Our supreme court first introduced the concept of a “parental presumption” into our case law several decades ago, in Hutchison v. Hutchison, 649 P.2d 38 (Utah 1982). At the center of that case was a dispute “between former spouses over the custody of a child born to the wife before their marriage.” Id. at 39. A “blood test” confirmed that the husband was not the biological father of the child, and he had apparently not legally adopted the child, but the court noted that he had “in every way” treated the child as his own and that the child viewed him as her father. Id. at 39–40. Despite the husband’s lack of a biological or legal connection to the child, the district court placed both mother and husband on equal footing for purposes of its custody determination, and used a simple best-interest test to determine custody, finding that it would be in the child’s best interest for the husband to have custody. Id. at 40. Our supreme court held that this analysis was incorrect, stating that, in a dispute over custody between two natural parents,[4] “the paramount consideration is the best interest of the child, but where one party to the controversy is a nonparent, there is a presumption in favor of the natural parent,” even if an ordinary best-interest inquiry would come out in favor of the nonparent. Id. The court based this presumption on “the common experience of mankind, which teaches that parent and child normally share a strong attachment or bond for each other, [and] that a natural parent will normally sacrifice personal interest and welfare for the child’s benefit.” Id. The court noted, however, that the parental presumption was “not conclusive” and was subject to being rebutted, but that it “cannot be rebutted merely by demonstrating that the opposing party possesses superior qualifications, has established a deeper bond with the child, or is able to provide more desirable circumstances.” Id. at 41. Indeed, the court held that
the parental presumption can be rebutted only by evidence establishing that a particular parent at a particular time generally lacks all three of the characteristics that give rise to the presumption: that no strong mutual bond exists, that the parent has not demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice his or her own interest and welfare for the child’s, and that the parent lacks the sympathy for and understanding of the child that is characteristic of parents generally. The presumption does not apply to a parent who would be subject to the termination of all parental rights due to unfitness, abandonment, or substantial neglect, since such a parent is a fortiori not entitled to custody.
Id. Unless the parental presumption is rebutted, a natural parent will always prevail in a custody battle with a nonparent, even if a best-interest analysis would counsel otherwise. On the other hand, if the presumption is rebutted, then the parent and the nonparent “compete on equal footing,” and the court should make a custody decision that is in the best interest of the child, with no inherent preference for the natural parent. Id.
¶13 As demonstrated by the facts of Hutchison, the parental presumption was introduced into our jurisprudence in a case involving a dispute between a natural parent and an individual without a biological or legal connection to the child. Since Hutchison, both this court and our supreme court have continued to apply the parental presumption in appropriate cases, but always in cases, like Hutchison, involving a custody dispute between a natural parent and a nonparent. See, e.g., In re K.F., 2009 UT 4, ¶ 69, 201 P.3d 985; Kishpaugh v. Kishpaugh, 745 P.2d 1248, 1250–53 (Utah 1987); Davis v. Davis, 2001 UT App 225, ¶¶ 7–13, 29 P.3d 676; Duncan v. Howard, 918 P.2d 888, 891–94 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). The parties have not directed us to—and we are not independently aware of—any Utah case in which the parental presumption as conceived in Hutchison has been applied in a dispute between two natural parents. Based on this absence of case law, Mother asserts that “the presumption does not apply in parent-to-parent custody matters,” and we acknowledge that this position has significant force.
¶14 But in this case, we need not determine the inapplicability
of the parental presumption on that basis. Even assuming— without deciding, and only for the purposes of the analysis— that the parental presumption could conceivably apply in a dispute between two natural parents, it does not apply in this case, because here both parents lost the presumption, given the uncontested findings made by the juvenile court regarding neglect (against Mother) and dependency (against Father). As the GAL points out,[5] our supreme court has clearly stated that the presumption “does not apply . . . to cases brought before the juvenile court on abuse, neglect, and dependency petitions.” See In re K.F., 2009 UT 4, ¶ 69 (quotation simplified). Parental rights, though “fundamental,” “are not absolute.” See Jensen ex rel. Jensen v. Cunningham, 2011 UT 17, ¶ 74, 250 P.3d 465 (quotation simplified). “A parent’s rights must be balanced against the state’s important interest in protecting children from harm.” Id. In cases in which abuse, neglect, or dependency is established, the usual parental presumption that prevents the State (a nonparent) from intervening in parental decision-making no longer applies, and the State (supervised by the juvenile court) may take custody of children, even over their parents’ objections, and place them appropriately.
¶15 In this case, Mother was the subject of a neglect petition, and Father was the subject of a dependency petition; the court entered affirmative findings on each, and those findings are uncontested here. Accordingly, even if we assume that the parental presumption could potentially apply to some parent-versus-parent contests, it cannot apply to this one, because in this case neither parent is entitled to its benefits. The neglect finding against Mother rebuts any parental presumption she might have, and the dependency finding against Father rebuts any parental presumption he might have. In a case like this one, the court is free to make its determinations about placement of the Children solely on best interest and on the other provisions of the Juvenile Court Act, without deferring to any parental presumption as envisioned in Hutchison. Accordingly, the juvenile court erred by concluding that a Hutchison-style parental presumption existed here in favor of Father.
II
¶16 However, all of this is not to say that Father enjoys no advantages over Mother, given the facts of this case, when it comes to making a best-interest determination with regard to the Children. Even though a dependency finding erases any Hutchison-style parental presumption that may have existed in favor of Father, see In re K.F., 2009 UT 4, ¶¶ 66–69, 201 P.3d 985, the juvenile court correctly noted that a dependency finding is, after all, a “no fault” finding, see Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-105(14)(LexisNexis Supp. 2019) (defining a “dependent child” as “a child who is homeless or without proper care through no fault of the child’s parent”), and is in that respect significantly different from a finding of abuse or neglect. In this vein, the GAL and the State assert that, even if the juvenile court erred in its application of the parental presumption, it did not err in making the ultimate decision to terminate reunification services and place the Children with Father. Essentially, the GAL and the State argue that any legal error the juvenile court made in its application of the parental presumption was harmless here, and that the court would almost certainly have placed the Children with Father in any event, given that Father had not been found to have abused or neglected the Children, and given that there was no evidence that he was in any other way unfit or unable to care for the Children. As noted above, “[h]armless error is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” In re B.C., 2018 UT App 125, ¶ 6, 428 P.3d 18 (quotation simplified). While we acknowledge that the harmless error argument advanced by the GAL and the State is not without force, we are ultimately unconvinced—given the tenor of some of the juvenile court’s statements in the course of making its ruling—that there is no reasonable likelihood that the juvenile court’s legal error affected the result. Under these circumstances, we are unable to affirm the juvenile court’s ultimate decision on the harmless error grounds suggested by the GAL and the State.
¶17 At the outset of the court’s analysis, it stated that it had “a neglect finding against the mother, which does rebut the parental presumption in favor of the mother,” and that it had “a dependency finding as to [Father], which was a no fault finding,” and that therefore it had “one parent whose parental presumption is rebutted, and one whose isn’t,” and that “from a legal standpoint, the father’s claims are superior to anybody else’s claims in the courtroom.” Then, with “that being said,” the court moved on to discuss reunification services, noting that “we’ve given it a really good try” and finding that, “[a]t eight months” the State “has made reasonable efforts” to provide reunification services to Mother. In the very next paragraph, however, the court returned to the parental presumption, and stated that if it “had a neglect finding against [Father] or we didn’t have a [d]ad, we’d probably keep working” at the goal of reunification with Mother. And again, at the end of its ruling, it weighed Mother’s partial compliance with the plan “against the father’s superior claim,” and concluded that it “legally . . . need[ed] to terminate reunification services and grant the State’s motion and the father’s request for custody at this time.”
¶18 The court’s statements make plain that its analysis was highly dependent upon its understanding of the parental presumption. Based on what it understood about the law governing such presumptions, the court considered itself legally bound to make a ruling in Father’s favor, and even went so far as to state that, absent a parental presumption in favor of Father, it would probably have given Mother additional time to complete the requirements of the plan. Under these circumstances, we are uncomfortable with the GAL’s and the State’s suggested conclusion that the juvenile court would have reached the same decision anyway. In this case, we think it best to remand this matter to the juvenile court so that it may hold another permanency hearing at which it should reconsider the matter anew without being unduly influenced by a belief that a Hutchison-style parental presumption drives the outcome.
¶19 We take pains to point out, however, that we are not attempting to instruct the juvenile court to reach one particular outcome or another, or to imply that the ultimate result the juvenile court reached was necessarily the wrong one. As we have already pointed out, Father has certain advantages in this proceeding, given that he is a natural parent of the Children and has not been found to have abused or neglected them. But given the dependency finding, any advantages he might enjoy are specific to the facts of the case and become relevant at the best-interest stage of the analysis; his advantages are not the result of a Hutchison-style parental presumption in his favor. Given the findings pertinent to both parents, in this case the juvenile court is tasked with placing the Children in accordance with the Juvenile Court Act and with their best interest, and is not bound to favor one side simply because of any parental presumption.
¶20 On remand, and among other things, the juvenile court should consider “whether the [Children] may safely be returned to the custody of [their] parent,” Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6314(2)(a), or whether there is a “substantial risk of detriment” to the Children’s well-being in doing so, id. § 78A-6-314(2)(b). In making this determination, the court may consider various factors, including Mother’s level of “participat[ion] in a court approved child and family plan,” id. § 78A-6-314(2)(c)(i)(A). The court may also consider whether to extend additional reunification services to Mother, an inquiry that includes consideration of whether extension of additional services “is in the best interest of” the Children. See id. § 78A-6-314(7)(a)(iii).
CONCLUSION
¶21 We vacate the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and establishing permanent custody and guardianship of the Children with Father. As explained herein, we do so not necessarily because we consider the result the juvenile court reached to be ultimately incorrect, but because the juvenile court committed legal error in the course of making its ruling, which error we cannot here label “harmless.” We remand for a new permanency hearing, at which the juvenile court should reach the result it believes is dictated by the Juvenile Court Act and by the best interest of the Children, and not by any parental presumption.
[1] DCFS’s petition also discussed Mother’s third child, Brother, but DCFS did not seek custody of Brother; instead, it asked the juvenile court to award custody and guardianship of Brother to Stepfather, who is Brother’s biological father. The juvenile court’s determinations regarding Brother are not directly at issue in this appeal, and reference to Brother and Stepfather are included here only as background.
[2] Mother also asserts that, even if the juvenile court did not commit legal error in its evaluation of the parental presumption, the adjudicated facts still do not support the court’s decision to terminate reunification services. Given our resolution of the other issues in this appeal, we need not consider this argument.
[3] The State takes the position that Mother failed to preserve any challenge to the juvenile court’s application of the parental presumption. It points out that Mother never asked the juvenile court to address the issue, and did not challenge the court’s application of the presumption after it had issued its ruling. But the juvenile court raised the issue sua sponte, and made the issue a central part of its ultimate ruling. Under these circumstances, the issue was preserved for appellate review. See Helf v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc, 2015 UT 81, ¶ 42, 361 P.3d 63 (stating that, “[w]here a district court itself raises and then resolves an issue sua sponte, it obviously had an opportunity to rule on the issue,” and these circumstances “satisf[y] the basic purposes of the preservation rule”); see also Kell v. State, 2012 UT 25, ¶ 11, 285 P.3d 1133 (holding that an issue was preserved for appeal when “the district court not only had an opportunity to rule on the issue . . . [but] it did rule on it”); State v. Cowlishaw, 2017 UT App 181, ¶ 21, 405 P.3d 885 (holding that an issue was preserved when “the [district] court addressed the issue sua sponte”).
[4] Utah’s Juvenile Court Act defines “natural parent” as “a minor’s biological or adoptive parent, and includes the minor’s noncustodial parent.” See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-105(38) (LexisNexis Supp. 2019). As mandated by statute, we employ this definition for the purposes of our analysis.
[5] The GAL agrees with Mother that the juvenile court incorrectly applied the parental presumption in this case, specifically asserting that “[t]he juvenile court’s claim that Father retained the parental presumption was legally wrong.” As noted, in our view the GAL’s position is correct.
V.M., Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee.
Opinion
No. 20180906-CA
Filed March 5, 2020
Fourth District Juvenile Court, Provo Department
The Honorable Brent H. Bartholomew
No. 1155142
Andrew G. Deiss and John Robinson Jr., Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M. Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
JUDGE JILL M. POHLMAN authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES KATE APPLEBY and DAVID N. MORTENSEN concurred.
POHLMAN, Judge:
¶1 V.M. appeals the juvenile court’s order substantiating a finding of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) that V.M. sexually abused a child. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 In 2015, a minor child (Child) alleged that V.M., her brother-in-law, sexually abused her. The State charged V.M. with aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The criminal case went to trial and resulted in an acquittal.
¶3 Separately from the criminal case, DCFS conducted an investigation into the allegation against V.M. As a result of that investigation, DCFS made and entered a supported finding against V.M. for sexual abuse of a child. See Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-101(41) (LexisNexis 2018) (“‘Supported’ means a finding by the division based on the evidence available at the completion of an investigation that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that abuse, neglect, or dependency occurred.”).
¶4 Although a copy of the agency’s decision was sent to V.M.’s last known address, V.M. never received it. Instead, he discovered it in 2017 when he underwent a background check. He requested an administrative hearing on the matter. After an internal review, DCFS upheld its supported finding of sexual abuse of a child.
¶5 V.M. then initiated the present action in juvenile court, seeking judicial review of DCFS’s decision. See generally id. § 63G-4-402(1)(a)(iii) (2016) (explaining that juvenile courts have jurisdiction over all state agency actions relating to “substantiated findings of abuse or neglect made by the Division of Child and Family Services”); id. § 78A-6-323(1)(a) (2018) (providing that upon the filing of a petition by DCFS “or any interested person” informing the court “that the division has made a supported finding that a person committed a severe type of child abuse or neglect,” the juvenile court shall, among other things, “make a finding of substantiated, unsubstantiated, or without merit”).
¶6 The juvenile court held a two-day trial in September 2018. At the beginning of the trial, DCFS announced its intention to play the video of Child’s forensic interview, and it indicated its understanding that V.M. would play the audio of Child’s testimony at his criminal trial and then Child would testify in the juvenile court. When the juvenile court asked whether that procedure was acceptable, V.M. indicated that it was “fine with [him].” The trial then proceeded in that fashion.
¶7 While the audio of Child’s trial testimony played, V.M. observed that the “quality [of the audio] is a little hard” and offered to provide a transcript for the juvenile court and others to use for “follow[ing] along” with the audio. V.M. then moved to admit the transcript of Child’s trial testimony, and the court granted the motion.
¶8 When Child testified in the juvenile court, she said that she remembered her forensic interview and testifying at V.M.’s criminal trial. When asked whether she remembered the specifics of her statements during the forensic interview, Child responded, “Not the specifics, but like vaguely. I just remember I was just nervous, and I just told everything I knew.” When DCFS asked Child whether she told the truth in the forensic interview and at the criminal trial, Child responded affirmatively. In the juvenile court proceedings, however, Child did not independently testify about the abuse.
¶9 Child’s mother testified, as did an employee of Brigham Young University (BYU) responsible for investigating allegations of sexual misconduct involving students. The employee testified that based on his investigation of V.M., who was a BYU student at the time of the alleged abuse, there was insufficient evidence to find that V.M. had violated BYU’s policies on sexual misconduct and child protection.
¶10 On the second day of trial in juvenile court, V.M. asked to telephone his next witness: the individual (Forensic Interviewer) who conducted the forensic interview of Child. When the court reached Forensic Interviewer by phone, she said that she was unavailable to testify. V.M. then proposed that the court read Forensic Interviewer’s testimony from V.M.’s criminal trial, telling the court, “[E]verything that you need is in the transcript.” The juvenile court admitted the transcript of that testimony into evidence. At V.M.’s request, the court also admitted the transcripts of his ex-wife’s testimony from his criminal trial. Additionally, V.M. played the audio recording of a conversation between Child and her parents. V.M. also asked for and received the admission of a transcript of that conversation; the transcript of Child’s aunt’s testimony at the criminal trial; and two declarations from the aunt, which, V.M. asserted, had bearing on Child’s “reputation for truthfulness.” Finally, V.M. testified before the juvenile court and denied abusing Child.
¶11 After trial, the juvenile court entered a written order. It found, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that when Child was eleven years old and visiting the home of her sister and V.M., V.M. sexually abused Child.[1]
¶12 The juvenile court found that shortly after the abuse, Child’s parents spoke with Child to find out what had happened. The court found that the parents’ inquiry, which they recorded, “was innocently done and did not taint the evidence later presented by [Child].”
¶13 The juvenile court further found that Child’s parents also arranged for Child to talk to a professional experienced in working with victims of sexual abuse. Once or twice before the interview with Forensic Interviewer, Child spoke with the professional because Child was “uneasy about talking about what [V.M.] had done to her.” The juvenile court found that the purpose of these conversations was for “strength and support” and “not for coaching [Child] on what to say” to Forensic Interviewer.
¶14 The juvenile court also found that no one had told Child “what to say” during the forensic interview. The adults in Child’s life “all encouraged [Child] to tell the truth about the incident” with V.M., and the court found that Child did in fact tell the truth.
¶15 Indeed, the juvenile court found that Child’s testimony at the criminal trial and in the forensic interview was “believable and credible.” According to the court, Child was “detailed in her description” of the abuse and she “was certain that [V.M.] was her abuser.” Child had “no motive to accuse” V.M. To the contrary, Child “found it difficult to comprehend that [V.M.] would knowingly touch her inappropriately” and even suggested that V.M. “might have been sleepwalking or not feeling well” when he abused her. The court also found that Child “displayed discomfort” in describing the abuse, did “not blurt out a rehearsed story,” and did not “appear to have been coached on what to say.”
¶16 The court further found that Forensic Interviewer “used proper protocol” in conducting the forensic interview of Child. In so finding, the court relied on the video of the forensic interview and Forensic Interviewer’s testimony given at the criminal trial. The court noted that Forensic Interviewer’s testimony was “credible.”
¶17 The juvenile court’s written order also included its conclusions of law. It began by explaining that DCFS had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that abuse or neglect occurred and that V.M. was substantially responsible for that abuse or neglect. See generally Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-1009(5)(a) (LexisNexis 2018). The court gave “little to no weight” to the fact that criminal charges against V.M. ultimately were dismissed and expunged, noting that the preponderance of the evidence standard applicable in the juvenile court proceeding is “lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt evidentiary standard used in the district court’s criminal trial.”
¶18 Similarly, the court gave “little weight” to the BYU investigation because it was “conducted for a different purpose” than the DCFS investigation and because the BYU investigator considered only information provided by V.M. The court noted that it had the “advantage” over the BYU investigator of “hearing directly from and meeting with [Child] through her testimony in court during the juvenile court trial.”
¶19 As a result of its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the juvenile court substantiated DCFS’s finding against V.M. for sexual abuse of a child. See id. § 62A-4a-101(39). The court accordingly dismissed V.M.’s petition. V.M. appeals.
ANALYSIS
¶20 On a petition informing the court “that the division has made a supported finding that a person committed a severe type of child abuse or neglect as defined in Section 62A-4a-1002,” the juvenile court shall, among other things, “make a finding of substantiated, unsubstantiated, or without merit.”[2] Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-323(1)(a) (LexisNexis 2018); see also id. § 63G-4-402 (2016) (explaining that juvenile courts have jurisdiction over all state agency actions relating to “substantiated findings of abuse or neglect made by the Division of Child and Family Services”). During the proceeding on such a petition, the juvenile court reviews DCFS’s finding “by trial de novo,” id. § 63G-4-402(1)(a), and DCFS has “the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that abuse, neglect, or dependency occurred and that the alleged perpetrator was substantially responsible for the abuse or neglect that occurred,” id. § 62A-4a-1009(5)(a) (2018).
¶21 The preponderance of the evidence standard generally “requires the proponent of a contested fact to demonstrate that its existence is more likely than not.” Harken Sw. Corp. v. Board of Oil, Gas & Mining, 920 P.2d 1176, 1182 (Utah 1996); see also Alvarado v. Tucker, 268 P.2d 986, 988 (Utah 1954) (defining preponderance of the evidence as the “greater weight of the evidence” in favor of the prevailing party). This standard of proof is lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applicable to criminal defendants. See Egbert v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 2007 UT 64, ¶ 12, 167 P.3d 1058; In re L.N., 2004 UT App 120, ¶ 8 n.2, 91 P.3d 836.
¶22 On appeal, V.M. contends that the juvenile court committed an error of law in (A) relying on the paper transcript of Child’s testimony from his criminal trial to determine the credibility of Child’s story and (B) relying on the transcript of Forensic Interviewer’s trial testimony to determine that Forensic Interviewer was credible. According to V.M., “it’s black letter law that credibility can only be determined from live testimony” and “[c]redibility simply cannot be determined from a cold transcript.” Because the juvenile court used both transcripts when deciding that Child’s allegations of abuse were substantiated, V.M. asserts that “a single error of law—the court’s mistaken premise that paper transcripts could be used for credibility—infected the [juvenile court’s] entire decision.”
A
¶23 With regard to Child—whose “testimony at trial and the [forensic] interview” the juvenile court found to be “believable and credible”—V.M. contends that because Child “did not tell her story” of the abuse to the juvenile court, the court improperly relied on the transcript of her testimony from V.M.’s criminal trial to find Child credible. V.M. argues that live testimony was essential to the court’s credibility assessment because the court could not assess Child’s credibility without observing her demeanor. We reject V.M.’s argument both because the juvenile court relied on more than just the transcript of Child’s trial testimony and because we do not agree that paper transcripts can never be used in evaluating a witness’s credibility.
¶24 First, to aid its assessment of Child’s credibility, the juvenile court was able to observe Child’s demeanor in a handful of ways. Specifically, the court listened to the audio recording of Child’s trial testimony and it relied on the transcript—at V.M.’s urging—to follow along. By listening to the audio recording, the court could hear Child’s tone of voice and how she responded to questioning, both of which could factor into its assessment of her credibility.[3] The court also watched Child’s forensic interview, and by doing so, it could observe Child’s outward demeanor as she described the abuse. Finally, Child testified before the juvenile court, and although she did not independently testify about the abuse during that testimony, the juvenile court could still take stock of Child’s general characteristics as a witness and compare them with her forensic interview and the transcript of her testimony during the criminal trial. Cf. In re M.A.V., 736 P.2d 1031, 1033 n.1 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (noting that where a judge had “heard [a witness’s deposition] testimony ‘live’” and “had seen and heard from” the witness at two other hearings, the “court accordingly had more opportunity to take the measure of [the witness] and evaluate his credibility, demeanor, and attitude than would ordinarily occur where a deposition transcript had to be relied upon”).
¶25 Because the court had before it the video of Child’s forensic interview as well as the audio and transcript of Child’s testimony at the criminal trial, a recording of her conversation with her parents, and Child’s in-person testimony,[4] we reject the premise of V.M.’s argument: that the court relied solely on “a cold transcript” in crediting her allegations of abuse.
¶26 Second, we agree with V.M. that the “‘importance of live testimony to a credibility determination is well recognized and longstanding.’” (Quoting Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883, 891 (9th Cir. 2013).) It is one of the reasons “credibility determinations are within the province of the district court judge,” who is best positioned to make factual findings based on oral testimony “due to his or her opportunity to view the witnesses firsthand, to assess their demeanor, and to consider their testimonies in the context of the proceedings as a whole.” Meyer v. Aposhian, 2016 UT App 47, ¶ 13, 369 P.3d 1284 (cleaned up); see also Utah R. Civ. P. 52(a)(4) (“Findings of fact, whether based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”); Henshaw v. Henshaw, 2012 UT App 56, ¶¶ 11–12, 271 P.3d 837 (explaining that trial courts are “better equipped to make credibility determinations based on conflicting oral evidence than an appellate court that has access only to the cold record”).
¶27 Yet V.M. has not persuaded us that black letter law prohibits fact-finders in all circumstances from considering transcripts in making credibility determinations.[5] After all, “factors other than demeanor and inflection go into the decision whether or not to believe a witness.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). “Documents or objective evidence may contradict the witness’ story; or the story itself may be so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it.” Id.; see also Jackson v. United States, 353 F.2d 862, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (“Credibility involves more than demeanor. It apprehends the overall evaluation of testimony in light of its rationality or internal consistency and the manner in which it hangs together with other evidence.” (cleaned up)); cf. Smith v. Freeman, 902 N.E.2d 1069, 1075 (Ill. 2009) (“It is a common practice for a judge, and even a jury, to make credibility determinations based on transcripts of testimony.”). And as we regularly instruct our juries, factors such as personal interest, bias, knowledge, memory, consistency, and reasonableness can aid a factfinder in the assessment of a witness’s credibility. See Model Utah Jury Instructions 2d CV121 (2018); see also id. CR207.
¶28 Thus, while we readily agree that viewing a witness firsthand is generally a superior way to evaluate his or her credibility, and while we do not question the value of live testimony, we cannot say that fact-finders are necessarily barred from using a cold transcript to evaluate a witness’s credibility in all circumstances. We therefore reject the premise of V.M.’s assertion of error on appeal—that paper transcripts could not be used to judge credibility as a matter of law. And particularly here, where V.M. invited the court to consider Child’s trial testimony,[6] we cannot conclude that the court committed legal error by considering the transcript along with the other evidence to determine that Child’s allegations were credible.
B
¶29 V.M. likewise assails the juvenile court’s reliance on the transcript of Forensic Interviewer’s testimony at his criminal trial. As compared to Child, the juvenile court had less opportunity to view Forensic Interviewer’s demeanor. But it had the transcript of her testimony from the criminal trial, it had the opportunity to view her demeanor by watching the forensic interview she conducted, and it could compare the interview with Forensic Interviewer’s testimony about it. Thus, although the court depended largely on the transcript to assess Forensic Interviewer’s credibility, its assessment was not strictly based on the transcript alone.
¶30 Still, even if the juvenile court had relied only on the transcript to judge Forensic Interviewer’s credibility, that is exactly what V.M. invited the court to do. An alleged error is invited when an appellant encourages the court to take the action he later challenges on appeal, and we will not reverse a court’s decision under such circumstances. See State v. McNeil, 2016 UT 3, ¶ 17, 365 P.3d 699; Pratt v. Nelson, 2007 UT 41, ¶ 17, 164 P.3d 366. When Forensic Interviewer was unable to testify, V.M. suggested that the court read her testimony, including cross-examination, from V.M.’s criminal trial. Though V.M. claims that he “never affirmatively invited the court to use paper transcripts for credibility determinations,” he told the court, without limitation, that “everything that [it] need[s] is in the transcript.” V.M. has not explained what he expected the court to do with Forensic Interviewer’s testimony if not assess her credibility on some level. By introducing the transcript and inviting the court to consider her testimony in evaluating the case, V.M. affirmatively and necessarily led the court to assess Forensic Interviewer’s credibility without personally observing her demeanor. We therefore cannot fault the juvenile court for its use of Forensic Interviewer’s transcript.
¶31 Further, even if V.M. did not invite this alleged error, he has not shown he was harmed by the court’s assessment of Forensic Interviewer’s credibility in the absence of in-person testimony. See Utah R. Civ. P. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); see also Utah R. Juv. P. 2(c) (“In substantiation proceedings, the procedure set forth in U.C.A. 63G-4-402(2) shall apply.”); Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-402(2)(b) (LexisNexis 2016) (explaining that substantiation proceedings are “governed by the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure”). V.M. states that Forensic Interviewer’s “credibility was never at issue in this case,” and he has not persuasively argued that had the juvenile court observed Forensic Interviewer’s demeanor and live testimony firsthand, its assessment of her credibility and the result of this proceeding would have been any different.
CONCLUSION
¶32 V.M. has not shown legal error in the juvenile court’s evaluation of the evidence in this case. Accordingly, we affirm its substantiation of DCFS’s finding against V.M. for sexual abuse of a child.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
———————————————————–
[1] Because the details of the abuse are not relevant to the issues on appeal, we do not repeat them here.
[2] “‘Substantiated’ or ‘substantiation’ means a judicial finding based on a preponderance of the evidence that abuse or neglect occurred.” Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-101(39) (LexisNexis 2018). “Unsubstantiated,” in contrast, “means a judicial finding that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that abuse or neglect occurred.” Id. § 62A-4a-101(44). And “without merit” includes a judicial finding “that the alleged abuse, neglect, or dependency did not occur, or that the alleged perpetrator was not responsible for the abuse, neglect, or dependency.” Id. § 62A-4a-101(46).
[3] V.M. also played for the court an audio recording of Child discussing the abuse with her parents.
[4] V.M. does not challenge the admission of any evidence, including the transcripts or the video. Nor does he complain that the court listened, at his urging, to the audio recording.
[5] 5. To the contrary, Utah law permits the use of transcripts at trial in some scenarios. For instance, the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure allow, under certain conditions, the use of depositions in court proceedings “for any purpose.” Utah R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2), (3); see also id. R. 32(e) (“Except as otherwise directed by the court, a party offering deposition testimony pursuant to this rule may offer it in stenographic or nonstenographic form, but, if in nonstenographic form, the party shall also provide the court with a transcript of the portions so offered.”). And the Utah Rules of Evidence allow, under certain conditions when a witness is unavailable, the admission of testimony that “was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition.” Utah R. Evid. 804(a), (b)(1) (setting forth when former testimony is not excluded by the rule against hearsay). Neither one of these rules suggests that credibility determinations from such non-live testimony are impossible. Indeed, when V.M. advised the court that he would be seeking to admit transcripts of the criminal trial testimony of his ex-wife and Child’s aunt due to their unavailability, the court noted its ability to assess their credibility through means other than observing their demeanor.
[6] Given that a jury had acquitted V.M. based on the testimony that Child gave at the criminal trial, V.M. may have, for strategic reasons, preferred that the juvenile court consider Child’s trial testimony rather than see Child testify to the details of the abuse in person.
This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter
In re G.J.P. – 2020 UT 4 – IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIAN, Petitioner,
v.
The HONORABLE JUDGE JULIE LUND, Third Judicial District Juvenile Court, Respondent.
No. 20190733
Heard November 15, 2019
Filed February 5, 2020
On Petition for Extraordinary Relief
Third District, Salt Lake
The Honorable Judge Julie Lund
No. 1153247
Attorneys:
Sean D. Reyes, Att’y Gen., Stanford E. Purser, Deputy Solic. Gen., Amy Jackson Leach, Asst. Att’y Gen., Salt Lake City, for petitioner
Brent M. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for respondent Thomas A. Luchs, Cottonwood Heights, for Mother, J.R.
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian ad Litem for G.J.P.
JUSTICE PEARCE authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE DURRANT, ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE LEE, JUSTICE HIMONAS, and JUSTICE PETERSEN joined.
JUSTICE PEARCE, opinion of the Court:
INTRODUCTION
¶1 The juvenile court appointed the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) as guardian ad litem for a mother (Mother) in a parental rights termination proceeding. OPG did not consent to the appointment and does not believe it is the appropriate entity to represent Mother. OPG filed this petition for extraordinary relief contending that the juvenile court lacks authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for an adult. OPG also contends that, even if the juvenile court has that ability, the court exceeded its discretion by appointing OPG. We grant the petition and afford OPG the relief it seeks. Although the juvenile court possesses the authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for an adult, the juvenile court strayed beyond the bounds of its discretion by appointing OPG in this matter.
BACKGROUND
¶2 In August of 2017, Mother was admitted to the University of Utah Hospital inpatient psychiatric unit. While hospitalized, she gave birth to G.J.P. G.J.P. experienced problems breathing and eating and was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit. G.J.P. remained hospitalized for several months. After treatment at the University of Utah Hospital, Mother was committed to the Utah State Hospital.
¶3 Soon after the birth of G.J.P., and with Mother still in the psychiatric unit, the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) began to inquire what it needed to do to ensure G.J.P.’s well-being. DCFS met with Mother and G.J.P.’s alleged father, both of whom acknowledged, according to DCFS, that they were unable to care for the child. DCFS also attempted to help Mother identify appropriate family to care for G.J.P., but these efforts, along with DCFS’s independent search for family members, did not identify anyone who could raise G.J.P.
¶4 DCFS moved for temporary custody of G.J.P., and the court granted prehearing custody to DCFS. DCFS also filed a stipulated motion to appoint a guardian for Mother. The motion noted Mother’s diagnosis and civil commitment and informed the court that Mother’s counsel did not believe that Mother understood what was happening in the termination proceedings. During hearings on DCFS’s motion, the juvenile court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for Mother.
¶5 Meanwhile, the parties tried, without success, to contact Mother’s sister who may have previously served as Mother’s guardian. Eventually the juvenile court granted custody to DCFS, and DCFS placed G.J.P. with foster parents.
¶6 The juvenile court also concluded that it needed to determine if it could order reunification services or if Mother’s illness rendered her incapable of taking part in those efforts. Accordingly, the court ordered Mother to participate in two psychological evaluations. Following the evaluations, Mother’s counsel again moved to appoint a guardian for Mother, noting that her illness “renders [Mother] mentally incompetent to assist in her own defense and communicate meaningfully with counsel.” The State did not object. The court found Mother incompetent, granted the motion, and appointed “a public guardian for [Mother].”
¶7 A month and a half later, the juvenile court issued an order explaining the multiple avenues it had explored to find someone to serve as Mother’s guardian. The court reported that the Utah Office of Guardian Ad Litem could not represent Mother because its representation of G.J.P. created a conflict. The court also recited that it could find no relative or friend willing or able to serve. And the court noted that it was unaware of any other mechanism it could employ to identify and appoint an attorney to act as guardian ad litem for Mother. But the juvenile court noted that, under its reading of the Utah Code, OPG could petition or agree to represent Mother and directed that a representative of OPG appear at the next hearing “so that the powers of its office may be further discussed.”
¶8 In response to the juvenile court’s directive, OPG argued that it was not a proper entity to represent Mother because OPG’s statutorily defined role is narrow and does not generally include advising or representing individuals in litigation.[1] OPG also argued that the juvenile court was not authorized to find a parent “sufficiently incompetent to appoint a guardian for purposes of assistance in litigation.” OPG therefore “declin[ed] to file a petition on behalf of [Mother].”
¶9 Mother’s counsel replied and claimed that OPG was not being asked to advise or represent Mother but to serve as guardian ad litem and “make decisions on her behalf which are in her best interest.”
¶10 The juvenile court held a hearing where OPG reiterated its concerns. Despite those concerns, the juvenile court ordered OPG to “represent” Mother.
¶11 OPG moved to set aside the juvenile court’s order, arguing again that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for an adult. The court denied the motion reasoning “[t]here is no person available to serve as a guardian for her” and “[t]he Office of the Public Guardian can provide a person to serve as a guardian for [Mother].”
¶12 OPG filed an interlocutory appeal of the order of appointment, and the termination proceeding was stayed. The court of appeals certified the appeal to this court. Upon its arrival at this court, we dismissed the petition because a non-party may not file an interlocutory appeal, but we did so with leave to refile as a petition for extraordinary relief. OPG then petitioned for relief. The court of appeals certified the petition to this court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶13 A person may petition for extraordinary relief on any of the specified grounds under rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure only when “no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available.” UTAH R. CIV. P. 65B(a). “This court has broad discretion to grant or deny extraordinary relief.” Gilbert v. Maughan, 2016 UT 31, ¶ 14, 379 P.3d 1263. In deciding whether to grant a petition we may consider the “egregiousness of the alleged error, the significance of the legal issue presented by the petition, the severity of the consequences occasioned by the alleged error,” or any other relevant consideration. State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 24, 127 P.3d 682.
¶14 Whether the juvenile court has authority to appoint a guardian ad litem presents a question of law. We review questions of law for correctness. See State v. Moreno, 2009 UT 15, ¶ 7, 203 P.3d 1000. And we review the juvenile court’s decision to appoint a specific guardian ad litem for an abuse of discretion. See Hanson v. La Flamme, 761 F. App’x 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to review trial court’s decision of who would serve as guardian ad litem); Gardner by Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d 131, 139 (3d Cir. 1989) (same).
ANALYSIS
¶15 Before we address the questions OPG presents, we need to highlight an issue that raises serious concerns meriting further exploration. No one has directly challenged whether the appointment of a guardian ad litem in these circumstances violates Mother’s due process rights.[2] But the guardian ad litem representing G.J.P. raised important questions about this issue.
¶16 Citing federal case law, the guardian ad litem argued that Mother would be entitled to a hearing if the purpose of the guardian was to override Mother’s legal decisions. We understand the concern. The juvenile court’s order was somewhat vague on the proposed role the guardian ad litem would play, and that left room for G.J.P.’s guardian ad litem to legitimately worry that the court had authorized the proposed guardian ad litem to make Mother’s decisions for her. In addition, Mother’s counsel made repeated references in briefing and oral arguments to the proposed guardian ad litem making decisions for Mother. See supra ¶ 9. Although these concerns lurked amidst the arguments—as did a concern that not appointing someone to assist Mother would also violate her due process rights—OPG’s petition does not ask us to address these due process questions.
¶17 We can see the substantial and important questions that may be implicated by the juvenile court’s decision to appoint a guardian ad litem, but they are difficult to address in the abstract. The calculus could change if the juvenile court envisioned a guardian ad litem who would “sit next to [M]other and answer her questions,” as OPG asserts the juvenile court explained at one point, instead of a guardian ad litem expected to, as Mother’s counsel asserted, make Mother’s decisions for her. The power of a guardian ad litem, depending on how the role is defined, may have significant effects on an incompetent person’s rights and the due process that should be afforded before a court infringes those rights.
¶18 Courts have recognized that “[t]here is something fundamental in the matter of a litigant being able to use his personal judgment and intelligence in connection with a lawsuit affecting him, and in not having a guardian’s judgment and intelligence substituted relative to the litigation affecting the alleged incompetent.” Graham v. Graham, 240 P.2d 564, 566 (Wash. 1952). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has held that declaring someone incompetent and appointing a guardian ad litem implicates a “protected liberty interest” and the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment. Thomas v. Humfield, 916 F.2d 1032, 1033 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971)). “The appointment of a guardian ad litem deprives the litigant of the right to control the litigation and subjects him to possible stigmatization.” Id. at 1034 (italics in original). Furthermore, “[t]he interposition of a guardian ad litem could very well substitute his judgment, inclinations and intelligence for an alleged incompetent’s,” and “the retention of legal counsel or the employment of a different attorney could be determined solely by the guardian ad litem . . . .” Graham, 240 P.2d at 566.
¶19 We also note that Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) instructs that a “guardian ad litem may be appointed in any case when it is deemed by the court in which the action or proceeding is prosecuted expedient to represent the minor, insane or incompetent person in the action or proceeding . . . .” Our rules authorize courts to appoint a guardian ad litem but provide no guidance as to the role that the guardian ad litem can or will play in the litigation.
¶20 Moreover, rule 17(b) delineates no safeguards a court should employ before appointing a guardian ad litem for an allegedly insane or incompetent person. Because these issues are not before us in this petition, we are not in a position to opine on the due process to which Mother may be entitled should the juvenile court seek to appoint a different guardian ad litem on remand.[3]
¶21 Additionally, before we reach the merits of OPG’s contentions, because of some confusion in the juvenile court’s order and some cross-talk in the briefing, we believe it helpful to clarify what we talk about when we talk about a guardian. Specifically, it is helpful to distinguish between a “guardian” and a “guardian ad litem.”
¶22 A general guardian for an incapacitated individual[4] has broad power over the person and her rights and affairs. Unless otherwise limited by the court, a general guardian “has the same powers, rights, and duties respecting the ward that a parent has respecting the parent’s unemancipated minor child.” UTAH CODE § 75-5-312(2). This generally includes having custody of the ward, establishing the ward’s place of abode, even if outside of the state, receiving the ward’s money and property for the ward’s support, and consenting to any professional care. Id. § 75-5-312(3). Statutory processes govern this action. See, e.g., id. ch. 75-5 & 75-5b. For example, when someone petitions the court for a finding that an adult is incapacitated and in need of a guardian, the court must hold a hearing, and the allegedly incapacitated person has a right to be present, have counsel, present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and have a trial by jury. Id. § 75-5-303. In statute, there are also guidelines for who can serve as a guardian, id. § 75-5-311, requirements for notice, id. § 75-5-309, actions for emergency appointment, id. § 75-5-310, and other detailed procedures. See id. §§ 75-5-301 to -317.
¶23 In contrast, the role a guardian ad litem may play is much less defined. According to those who purport to know such things, Ad litem is Latin for “to suit.” Ad litem, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) (defining ad litem as “for the purposes of the suit”); Ad Litem, MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY ONLINE, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20litem (defining ad litem as “for the lawsuit or action”); Guardian ad litem, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) (defining guardian ad litem as “[a] guardian, usu[ally] a lawyer, appointed by the court to appear in a lawsuit on behalf of an incompetent or minor party” (emphasis added)). In other words, a guardian ad litem is appointed for a specific matter before the court.
¶24 Utah’s statutes governing the appointment of a “guardian” do not, by their express terms, apply to the appointment of a guardian ad litem.[5] And Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) allows a guardian ad litem to be appointed even when there is already a general guardian over the person. However, beyond this understanding, the role of guardian ad litem for an incompetent adult is largely unspecified in Utah law.
¶25 The role of a guardian ad litem for a minor is principally defined in statute. See UTAH CODE § 78A-2-701 to -705. Whereas, the role a guardian ad litem for an incapacitated adult is addressed only in stray references throughout the code. Utah Code section 75-3 203(4), for example, provides that a guardian ad litem is prohibited from nominating someone to serve as a personal representative under the Probate Code. And section 75-1-403 provides that a court can appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interest of, and approve an agreement on behalf of, an incapacitated person in estate proceedings. See id. § 75-1-403(4).
¶26 OPG contends that the juvenile court did not specify in its order whether it was appointing OPG as a general guardian or a guardian ad litem. True enough. But it is reasonable to conclude, from the context and statements the court made, that it appointed OPG as a guardian ad litem to assist Mother in this case. The juvenile court found “there is no procedure available to the Court to act as Guardian ad Litem,” and “there is no other person willing or able to act as Guardian ad Litem.” Moreover, the juvenile court noted that OPG may “agree to represent [Mother] in this action.” (Emphasis added). Thus, we are confident that the juvenile court envisioned appointing OPG to represent Mother in the termination case only. And our analysis proceeds from the conclusion that we are examining the appointment of a guardian ad litem and not a general guardian.
OPG Can Seek Extraordinary Relief Because It Lacks a Plain, Speedy, and Adequate Remedy to Address Its Appointment
¶27 Under rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, “where no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available,” id. 65B(a), a person may petition for relief from a court’s wrongful use of judicial authority, id. 65B(d). The person petitioning on this ground for relief must be a “person aggrieved or whose interests are threatened by any of the acts” specified. Id. 65B(d)(1). Rule 65B(d) contemplates that a person may seek a petition “where an inferior court . . . has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion.” Id. 65B(d)(2)(A).
¶28 OPG asserts both. OPG claims that the juvenile court exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing any guardian ad litem for an adult and that it went beyond the bounds of its discretion by appointing OPG specifically. OPG has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy because it is not a party to the action below. Indeed, OPG attempted to appeal its appointment, but this court dismissed that appeal because OPG was not a party to the action. Supra ¶ 12; see Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 2005 UT 19, ¶ 46 & n.7, 110 P.3d 678 (noting that nonparties may not appeal lower court orders and that extraordinary writ would be the proper vehicle to challenge such order), overruled on other grounds by Madsen v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2012 UT 51, ¶ 5, 296 P.3d 671. Additionally, this petition could not first be brought to the district court because the juvenile court “is of equal status with the district courts of the state.” See UTAH CODE § 78A-6-102(3). Thus, a petition for an extraordinary relief constitutes the proper vehicle for OPG to advance its arguments.
The Juvenile Court has Inherent Authority to Appoint a Guardian Ad Litem
¶29 OPG first asserts that because juvenile courts are courts of limited jurisdiction created by statute, they do not have authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for a parent in a matter before the court. We disagree.
¶30 All courts have a responsibility to ensure the fair and just proceeding of matters before them. This includes the requirement that the court protect the rights of incompetent parties that come before it. 53 AM. JUR. 2d Mentally Impaired Persons § 174 (2019). Court proceedings can exercise the ultimate power of the government to interfere with rights and freedoms inherent in the individuals that enter the courtroom doors. If a person is not “competent, understandingly and intelligently, to comprehend the significance of legal proceedings,” Graham v. Graham, 240 P.2d 564, 565 (Wash. 1952), her most fundamental rights could be gravely affected.
¶31 Courts are tasked with adjudicating vital disputes, like considering whether a parent should be stripped of the right to raise her child, and are duly obligated to ensure the parties affected are competent to be involved in the process. Indeed, we have codified this important principle in our Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 17(b) states that “an insane or incompetent person who is a party must appear either by a general guardian or by a guardian ad litem appointed in the particular case by the court in which the action is pending.”
¶32 OPG nevertheless asserts that a juvenile court, exercising its duly granted jurisdiction to hear a case, cannot protect an incompetent party by appointing her a guardian ad litem. This ignores the long-standing principle, recognized by our sister states and federal courts, that the authority to appoint a guardian ad litem is inherent in the court’s exercise of its proper subject matter jurisdiction.
¶33 For example, in Graham, a mother petitioned the Washington Supreme Court to prohibit the trial court from appointing a guardian ad litem for her in a child visitation dispute. 240 P.2d at 565. Much like the present case, the trial court in Graham had called a psychiatrist to testify about the mother’s mental health in regards to the underlying matter but, after that testimony, “felt compelled to protect the interests of [the mother] by appointing a guardian ad litem for her.” Id. The mother’s counsel objected. Id. The Washington Supreme Court had to decide, it noted, whether the trial court acted “within and not in excess of” its jurisdiction. Id. That court then reasoned that “the principle is well established” for courts to appoint guardian ad litem when needed, “[i]rrespective of specific statutory authorization.” Id. Such a party may not “comprehend the significance of legal proceedings and the effect [and] relationship of such proceedings in terms of [his or her] best interests.” Id. Thus, the power to appoint a guardian ad litem is “part of and incidental to” the court’s jurisdiction over the underlying case. Id.
¶34 In Guardianship of H.L., the Vermont Supreme Court concluded that “the appointment of a guardian ad litem is a power inherent in courts in dealing with those appearing before them who are under disability.” 460 A.2d 478, 479 (Vt. 1983). The court reasoned that the trial court had to be able to fulfill its duty to see that the interests of an incompetent person were fully protected, especially when fundamental rights were involved. Id. Similar to the case here, that case involved the right of a parent to the custody of her child. Id. That court noted these rights as basic rights and held that when the incompetent’s counsel raised the issue to the court, it was “incumbent upon the court to insure that [mother’s] interests were protected,” and that the court therefore erred in not investigating further or appointing a guardian ad litem. Id. at 480.
¶35 In the same fashion, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a juvenile court had power to appoint a guardian ad litem for an adult even in a wider scope of cases than relevant statutes contemplated. See People in Interest of M.M., 726 P.2d 1108, 1118–20 (Colo. 1986). That court held that it was “well established” and “proper” for a court to appoint a guardian ad litem for an incompetent party. Id. at 1118. The court further reasoned that this principle was well supported by the court’s rule of procedure requiring the protection of incompetent persons and appointment of guardian ad litem in some circumstances. Id. at 1119.
¶36 These courts are not outliers. The principle is well established across the country. See, e.g., Zaro v. Strauss, 167 F.2d 218, 220 (5th Cir. 1948) (“Even in the absence of an inquisition of insanity or of a commitment, where a person is incompetent courts generally have inherent power to protect the interests of the incompetent by appointing a guardian ad litem to represent the incompetent in proceedings.”); Estate of Leonard, ex rel., Palmer v. Swift, 656 N.W.2d 132, 139 (Iowa 2003) (“In addition to [the rules of civil procedure], the court has the inherent power to do whatever is essential to the performance of its constitutional functions, . . . including the appointment of a guardian ad litem.” (citation omitted)); In re Interest of A.M.K., 420 N.W.2d 718, 719 (Neb. 1988) (reviewing a parental rights termination proceeding from juvenile division and holding that “[e]very court has inherent power to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent an incapacitated person in that court”); Buckingham v. Alden, 53 N.E.2d 101, 104 (Mass. 1944) (“[T]he authority to appoint a guardian ad litem or next friend is not limited to the foregoing statutory provisions. Such power is inherent in the court and its exercise at times becomes necessary for the proper functioning of the court.”); Schultz v. Oldenburg, 277 N.W. 918, 922 (Minn. 1938) (“[T]his power of the district courts to [appoint a guardian ad litem] is not taken away by the statutes authorizing the probate courts to appoint general guardians for insane persons.” (citation omitted)); Wilson v. Ball, 523 S.E.2d 804, 806 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999) (“[T]he authority for a circuit court to appoint a guardian ad litem is inherent in the court itself . . . .”); In re Serafin, 649 N.E.2d 972, 976 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (“The circuit court is charged with a duty to protect the interests of its ward and has, by statute and otherwise, those powers necessary to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the respondent during the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction.” (italics in original)); Berman v. Grossman, 260 N.Y.S.2d 736, 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965) (“The power to appoint a guardian ad litem to appear for and represent the incompetent in the proceeding, absent prohibitory legislation, is among the court’s inherent powers in the matter of supervision over the person and property of the incompetent.”); 53 AM. JUR. 2d Mentally Impaired Persons § 174 (“A court has the inherent power to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent an incompetent person in that court.”).
¶37 After reviewing this case law, we similarly agree that a court, even a statutorily-created juvenile court, may appoint a guardian ad litem for an incompetent adult in a matter properly before the court. This power is inherent in the court’s jurisdiction independent of a specific statutory grant of authority.
¶38 OPG raises several arguments attempting to keep us from this conclusion. First, OPG argues that the juvenile court does not have inherent power because it is a legislatively created court of limited jurisdiction. For this proposition, OPG cites to Western Water, LLC v. Olds, 2008 UT 18, 184 P.3d 578, and its discussion of State ex rel. B.B., 2004 UT 39, 94 P.3d 252.
¶39 In Western Water, we allowed a district court to award costs even when it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying matter because, we said, the district court has inherent power over its processes, including attorneys. See 2008 UT 18, ¶ 42. In contrast, in State ex rel. B.B. we did not allow a juvenile court to award costs because it did not have jurisdiction over the underlying matter. See 2004 UT 39, ¶ 20. We distinguished State ex rel. B.B. because juvenile courts, unlike district courts, are courts of limited jurisdiction. W. Water, 2008 UT 18, ¶¶ 46–47. OPG points to the intersection of these holdings and argues that juvenile courts are limited to those powers enshrined in statute.
¶40 OPG’s argument misses the mark. The jurisdiction at issue in State ex rel. B.B. was the juvenile court’s subject matter jurisdiction. We reasoned that the juvenile court could not award costs because it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute. State ex rel. B.B., 2004 UT 39, ¶ 19; see also W. Water, 2008 UT 18, ¶ 46. In other words, the juvenile court did not have “inherent” power to do something in aid of a case over which it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In contrast, here there is no question that the juvenile court has subject matter jurisdiction over a parental rights termination proceeding. See UTAH CODE § 78A-6-103(1). And, as described above, we join the throng of other states that have concluded that a court has inherent power to appoint a guardian ad litem to aid the progress of a case within its subject matter jurisdiction.
¶41 Second, OPG notes that the Juvenile Court Act specifically spells out that juvenile courts have “exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings concerning . . . appointment of a guardian of the person or other guardian of a minor who comes within the court’s jurisdiction . . . .” Id. § 78A-6-103(1)(d). OPG asserts that a ruling that juvenile courts have inherent authority to appoint a guardian ad litem would render this statute superfluous. We disagree. This statute simply excepts other courts from having original jurisdiction to name guardians for minors who are under the juvenile court’s proper jurisdiction. There is no indication in the statute that the Legislature intended this statement of the juvenile court’s original jurisdiction to strip the juvenile court of its inherent authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for an incompetent adult in a matter properly before it.
¶42 Third, OPG points to the Utah Probate Code, which outlines the procedures for appointing a guardian, and asserts that those provisions deny the juvenile court the jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for an adult. Specifically, OPG asserts that the Probate Code provides the sole basis for appointing a guardian for an incapacitated adult.
¶43 OPG argues that Utah Code section 75-5b-202 states that a “court of this state has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian” if certain requirements are met, and that the phrase “court of this state” does not encompass juvenile courts. OPG correctly asserts that the Probate Code defines “court” as those courts “having jurisdiction in matters relating to the affairs of decedents.” Id. § 75-1-201(8). Because the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction over the affairs of decedents, it is not, reasons OPG, a court within the meaning of the Probate Code. Thus, OPG argues that because section 75-5b-201 states that these statutes are the exclusive jurisdictional basis for appointing a guardian, the juvenile court could not have jurisdiction to appoint OPG in this case.
¶44 This argument fails however, because when the Probate Code speaks of guardians, it refers to general guardians and not guardians ad litem; as noted, the definitions that apply to the Probate Code define “guardian” but specifically exclude a “guardian ad litem” from that definition. See id. § 75-1-201(20). OPG nevertheless contends that this definition of guardian applies only generally throughout the Probate Code and that there is another, more specific definition of guardian in the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA). Id. §§ 75-5b-101, et seq. There, guardian is defined as “a person appointed by the court to make decisions regarding the person of an adult, including a person appointed under Title 75, Chapter 5, Part 3, Guardians of Incapacitated Persons.” Id. § 75-5b-102(4) (emphasis added). Because this definition does not contain the carve out for guardians ad litem found in the general definition, OPG believes that UAGPPJA’s requirements for appointing an adult guardian, including vesting the district court with exclusive jurisdiction for that appointment, applies to guardians ad litem for an adult as well. See id. § 75-5b-201.
¶45 Although OPG is correct that UAGPPJA’s definition of guardian does not contain the general definition’s exclusion of guardians ad litem, we are not convinced that this evinces a legislative intent that UAGPPJA govern the appointment of guardians ad litem for an adult. This is because UAGPPJA applies to a guardian appointed “to make decisions regarding the person of an adult.” Id. § 75-5b-102(4). This hearkens back to the term of art “guardian of the person,” which is sometimes employed to describe a guardian “responsible for caring for someone who is incapable of caring for himself or herself because of infancy, incapacity, or disability.” Guardian of the person, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); accord Home Town Fin. Corp. v. Frank, 368 P.2d 72, 75 (Utah 1962) (referring to “guardian of his person” as one who “look[s] after his personal affairs”). It also echoes language that we use to talk about a general guardian who has “general care and control of the ward’s person and estate.” General guardian, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019).
¶46 Moreover, UAGPPJA is based upon the uniform act. The commentary to the act states that the uniform legislation “would not ordinarily apply to a guardian ad litem.” NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS, UNIFORM ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS JURISDICTION ACT 8 (2007). Our Legislature adopted the uniform act’s definition. Because of this, we have little trouble concluding that the Legislature did not intend UAGPPJA to divest juvenile courts of their inherent ability to appoint a guardian ad litem.
¶47 Finally, OPG argues that Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), which requires an incompetent person to appear by guardian or guardian ad litem, cannot increase a juvenile court’s jurisdiction or run contrary to statute. We agree that this court could not, by rule, give the juvenile court subject matter jurisdiction over a category of disputes from which the Legislature had deliberately excluded it by statute. But, as discussed above, the appointment of a guardian ad litem is inherent in the court’s jurisdiction to manage the cases over which it has proper subject matter jurisdiction and so does not increase the court’s authority.
III. The Juvenile Court Exceeded its Discretion by Appointing the Office of Public Guardian As Guardian Ad Litem
¶48 OPG next asserts that even if we conclude, as we have, that the juvenile court does have the authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for an adult, it was wrong to appoint OPG. OPG argues that it is an entity created in statute whose “powers and duties” are defined solely by statute, see UTAH CODE § 62A-14-103, and that the juvenile court’s order contravenes these statutes.
¶49 The statute directs OPG to “serve as a guardian, conservator, or both for a ward upon appointment by a court when no other person is able and willing to do so and the office petitioned for or agreed in advance to the appointment.” Id. § 62A-14 105(1)(a)(ii). “Guardian” here is defined by reference to the guardianship statutes that specifically exclude guardian ad litem. See id. § 62A-14-102(4). Thus, OPG argues, it would be expressly outside its enabling statutes to serve as a guardian ad litem.
¶50 The Legislature also decreed that OPG must have “petitioned for or agreed in advance to the appointment” before a court can draft it into service. Id. § 62A-14-105(1)(a)(ii). That did not occur here. OPG reiterates that the juvenile court “cannot compel OPG to do more than what it is authorized to do by statute.”
¶51 We take OPG’s point. The Legislature appears to have created OPG for a very specific purpose. And the Legislature empowered OPG to be the sole arbiter of when it will serve. Against this statutory backdrop, the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of its discretion in appointing OPG without its consent.
¶52 This does not mean, however, that the juvenile court has depleted its options. There appears to be nothing in statute that speaks to the qualifications to serve as a guardian ad litem for an adult. Certainly, the parties have not pointed us to anything that would limit who can serve. Our rules appear to be similarly bereft of requirements. Thus, the pool of people who could potentially be appointed as guardian ad litem in a case such as this is vast.
¶53 We can understand why the juvenile court looked to OPG when efforts to locate a family member or friend failed.[6] But it strayed outside the boundaries of its discretion when it appointed OPG without its consent.
CONCLUSION
¶54 The juvenile court has inherent authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for an incompetent party appearing before it in a matter over which it has subject matter jurisdiction. However, because it is contrary to OPG’s statutorily granted role, the juvenile court exceeded its discretion by ordering OPG to serve as guardian ad litem. We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
————————————————————
[1] The Office of Public Guardian is a statutorily created entity. See UTAH CODE §§ 62A-14-101 to -111. Section 105, entitled, “Powers and duties of the office,” allows OPG to, among other things, “serve as a guardian, conservator, or both for a ward upon appointment by a court when no other person is able and willing to do so and the office petitioned for or agreed in advance to the appointment.” Id. § 62A-14-105(1)(a)(ii). OPG generally only serves in the last instant when no one else can. Section 75-5-311(3) creates a prioritized list of who can serve as guardian—the Legislature places OPG as the very last option right after “any competent person or suitable institution.” Id. § 75-5-311(3)(i). Even then, the Legislature has invested OPG with the ability to decide when it will serve as a guardian. Section 62A-14-110 instructs that a court cannot appoint OPG without its consent. Id. § 62A-14-110(1) (“The office may not be appointed as the guardian or conservator of a person unless the office petitioned for or agreed in advance to the appointment.”).
[2] Similarly, the question of whether the juvenile court correctly determined whether Mother needs a guardian ad litem is not before this court.
[3] In addition to flagging the issue for remand, we ask our standing committees on the rules of civil and juvenile procedure to examine the issue and suggest ways to address the question.
[4] “Incapacity” is defined in Utah statute. UTAH CODE § 75-1 201(22). The statutes governing the court appointment of a guardian for an adult require a finding of incapacity. Id. § 75-5-303. The juvenile court in this case stated that it found Mother to be “an incompetent person,” and not an incapacitated person within the meaning of section 201.
[5] The Probate Code provides that “‘[g]uardian’ means a person who has qualified as a guardian of a minor or incapacitated person pursuant to testamentary or court appointment, or by written instrument . . . , but excludes one who is merely a guardian ad litem.” UTAH CODE § 75-1-201(20).
[6] The juvenile court correctly noted that we have devised no formal process for the court to appoint an attorney to serve as guardian ad litem for an adult when more traditional candidates— like a family member or friend—cannot be found. But this lack of procedure does not warrant drawing OPG into the matter contrary to its statutory mandate.
And while we understand that the juvenile court may have perceived that it had exhausted its efforts to find someone to help Mother, we note the long tradition in our state of attorneys stepping up to serve in difficult situations when requested.
Rule 6.1 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct urges attorneys to participate in activities that serve the legal system and profession. Many attorneys have kept faith with that rule by agreeing to serve as pro bono counsel in Post-Conviction Remedies Act cases. Many of us have, at some point in our careers, received a call from a judge who, having seen potential merit in a Post-Conviction Remedies Act petition, is searching for a volunteer to represent the petitioner. We appreciate the many attorneys who have responded to those calls. Cases like this appear to be another way that attorneys could fulfill rule 6.1’s mandate.
Because a guardian ad litem does not have to be an attorney, there may be other groups, such as social work clinics and mental health advocacy groups, who may be willing to help identify individuals willing to serve in difficult situations.
We appreciate that this is far from a perfect solution, and that we should not systemically rely on vague procedures and the good will of our bar and community to ensure that our system treats people fairly. As our rules committees examine ways we might improve our rules with respect to the appointment of guardians ad litem for adults, we ask that they consider how the courts can better identify and appoint suitable guardians ad litem for incompetent adults.
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF H.F., A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
J.F., Appellant,
v.
E.F., Appellee.
Opinion
No. 20180348-CA
Filed December 12, 2019
Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Julie V. Lund
No. 1100472
Scott L. Wiggins and Lisa Lokken, Attorneys for Appellant
Joshua P. Eldredge, Attorney for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES JILL M. POHLMAN and DIANA HAGEN concurred.
CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:
¶1 J.F. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to H.F. (Child). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Child was born in December 2012. Soon after Child’s birth, Mother discovered that her husband, E.F. (Father), had been using drugs. Suffering from postpartum depression, Mother also began using drugs with Father as a means of self-medicating.
¶3 In March 2014, the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) removed Child from Mother and Father’s home as a result of their drug use. Upon removal, DCFS placed Child with Mother’s parents (Grandparents). During this time, Grandparents facilitated visitation between Child and Father, as well as Father’s extended family.
¶4 Soon after Child was removed from the parents’ home, Mother began a relationship with “a really bad guy.” She left Utah with him, and they began committing crimes together. Eventually, the pair were arrested, convicted of multiple crimes, and incarcerated.
¶5 Conversely, Father began participating in drug treatment in June 2014. After completing treatment, he became involved in various peer support groups to help others with drug addiction and even obtained a full-time job as a peer recovery coach for a nonprofit addiction-recovery agency. In March 2015, Father filed for divorce from Mother and was granted a default divorce awarding him full legal and physical custody of Child. In May 2015, upon the State’s motion, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and DCFS involvement. After Father regained custody of Child, Grandparents continued to provide regular daycare for Child.
¶6 In July 2016, Father moved the juvenile court to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Father was engaged to be married, and his fiancée (Fiancée) wanted to adopt Child, but they had not yet set a wedding date and were not yet living together.[1] Grandparents “had a heated conversation with” Father about his termination petition, and subsequently, he put Child in full-time daycare and did not permit Grandparents to see Child as often.
¶7 At Mother’s termination trial in December 2017, her former criminal attorney expressed his belief that Mother’s criminal actions had been “very much influenced by” her codefendant but that she “was a model defendant”; continually showed concern for her family and a desire to take care of her children;[2] had come to understand, through participation in counseling, her responsibilities and the detrimental effects of her co-dependent relationship with her co-defendant; and ultimately told the truth about the criminal incidents even though her codefendant was damaged by her admissions. Mother was still incarcerated at the time of the termination trial but was due to be released in April 2019. She had been participating in a voluntary drug-treatment program. She testified that prior to Child’s removal, she was his “sole care provider.” She testified that she has a bond with Child, that she has had regular telephone and video calls with him since losing custody and sends him letters, that Child had expressed his desire to be reunited with Mother, and that she wants to have “visitation as much as possible” and to “be in [Child’s] life as much as [she] can.” She testified that she regrets her past decisions and their effect on her children, but she also could not rule out the possibility of a relationship with her co-defendant when he is released from prison in eight or nine years.
¶8 Father testified that he was willing to support a continuing relationship between Child and Mother following termination of her rights so long as it was “safe” for Child. Although Father did not discourage Child’s contact with Mother, he did not directly facilitate Mother and Child’s contact; rather, this contact took place when Child visited Grandparents. Both Father and Fiancée testified that Child has a very good relationship with Fiancée, that she treats him like her own child, and that Child sees her as his mom. Father testified that he believed Child’s relationship with Mother’s family was “beneficial.” He claimed that Child’s relationship with Mother’s family would not change if Mother’s rights were terminated. He admitted that he “could make a better effort in . . . communicating to set” up time between Child and Mother’s extended family but explained that he had felt a need to set “boundaries” because the termination petition had “put a strain” on his relationship with Mother’s family.
¶9 Grandparents expressed fear that termination would “have a very negative impact on [their] relationship with [Child]” and that Father “would move on” and “find a way to take [Child] away from” Grandparents. Mother’s brother, who also had a close relationship with Father, expressed his belief that Father had become uninterested in Mother’s side of the family and that Father would not let Mother’s family see Child anymore if Mother’s rights were terminated. Another of Mother’s brothers likewise testified that the family’s contact with Child had been less frequent during the preceding year and that he believed Father would cut off contact between Child and Mother’s family if the court terminated Mother’s rights.
¶10 Following trial, the juvenile court found two grounds for termination: (1) that Mother was an unfit parent because she was unable to care for Child as a result of her incarceration and (2) that she had neglected child through her habitual and excessive use of controlled substances. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1)(b), (c) (LexisNexis 2018); id. § 78A-6-508(2)(c), (e) (Supp. 2019). The court further found that termination was in Child’s best interest.
¶11 In reaching its conclusion regarding Child’s best interest, the juvenile court limited its analysis to three factors—Child’s “bond with his caregivers,” his “need for permanence and stability,” and “the potential risk of harm if returned to [Mother’s] care.” The court found that there was not an intact parental relationship between Mother and Child because she had not acted as his caregiver for an extended period of time. It observed that although Child recognizes that Mother is his mom, he has developed a mother–child bond with Fiancée as well. The court also found that Fiancée intended “to adopt [Child] should he be legally free.” The court concluded that “[t]hese facts support the need for permanence and stability and that [Child] does have a bond with his caregivers.” The court further found that there was “a potential risk of harm to” Child from Mother because she could not rule out the possibility of a future relationship with her co-defendant, who had been described as a “really bad guy.” Finally, the court found that termination of Mother’s rights was “strictly necessary for [Child] to achieve permanency and stability.” Based on these findings, the court determined that it was in Child’s best interest that Mother’s parental rights be terminated. Mother now appeals.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶12 Mother argues that the juvenile court exceeded its discretion in terminating her parental rights. “The ultimate decision about whether to terminate a parent’s rights presents a mixed question of law and fact.” In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 8, 436 P.3d 206 (quotation simplified), cert. granted, 440 P.3d 692 (Utah 2019). We review the court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions for correctness, “affording the court some discretion in applying the law to the facts.” Id. (quotation simplified). Nevertheless, “the proper interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law which we review for correctness.” In re A.M., 2009 UT App 118, ¶ 6, 208 P.3d 1058 (quotation simplified).
ANALYSIS
¶13 In assessing whether termination of parental rights is appropriate, a court must employ a “two-part test.” In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 13, 436 P.3d 206, cert. granted, 440 P.3d 692 (Utah 2019). “First, a trial court must find that one or more of the statutory grounds for termination are present,” and second, “a trial court must find that termination of the parent’s rights is in the best interests of the child.” Id. (quotation simplified). Mother does not contest the juvenile court’s determination that grounds existed to support termination, but she maintains that termination was not in Child’s best interest and that the court did not adequately consider all factors relevant to that determination.
¶14 “The ‘best interest’ test is broad, and is intended as a holistic examination of all the relevant circumstances that might affect a child’s situation.” Id. ¶ 47; see also In re G.J.C, 2016 UT App 147, ¶ 24, 379 P.3d 58 (“Determining a child’s best interest in termination of parental rights proceedings is a subjective assessment based on the totality of the circumstances.”). Utah courts have identified numerous factors that may be relevant to this determination. For example, a court may consider “the physical, mental, or emotional condition and needs of the child”; “the effort the parent has made to adjust their circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make restoring the parent–child relationship in the child’s best interest”; “the child’s bond with caregivers”; the child’s “need for permanency and stability”; and “the potential risk of harm if returned to the parents’ care.” See In re G.J.C., 2016 UT App 147, ¶ 24 (quotation simplified). It may consider the parent’s “demeanor,” “attitude toward his or her child,” and “attitude in fulfilling parental obligations,” see In re T.E., 2011 UT 51, ¶ 44, 266 P.3d 739, and it may weigh the benefits of the child continuing a relationship with an unfit parent even where reunification is not an option, examine the child’s prospects for adoption, and even consider the child’s preferences in some circumstances, In re D.R.A., 2011 UT App 397, ¶¶ 19, 21, 266 P.3d 844; see also In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 56. Moreover, as part of the best interest analysis, Utah law requires courts to “analyze whether termination of a child’s parent’s rights is ‘strictly necessary,’” that is, the court must “explore whether other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family, short of imposing the ultimate remedy of terminating the parent’s rights.” In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶¶ 50, 55; see also Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1) (LexisNexis 2018) (“Subject to the protections and requirements of Section 78A-6-503, and if the court finds strictly necessary, the court may terminate all parental rights with respect to a parent if the court finds any one of the following [statutory factors] . . . .” (emphasis added)).
¶15 In conducting its best interest analysis, the juvenile court did not take the holistic approach that has been prescribed by this court. Rather than examining the totality of all circumstances affecting Child’s best interest, the court erroneously interpreted In re G.J.C., 2016 UT App 147, 379 P.3d 58, as articulating a best interest test composed of only three specific factors: (1) “bond with caregivers,” (2) “need for permanence and stability,” and (3) “the potential risk of harm if returned to the parent’s care.” See id. ¶ 24. Further, the court’s finding that termination was “strictly necessary” was conclusory and did not include an examination of feasible alternatives to termination, as required by In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, 436 P.3d 206.[3]
¶16 The court’s reliance on only the three specific factors gleaned from In re G.J.C. unduly narrowed the “broad,” “holistic” best interest test, see In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 47, and its order did not accurately represent the direction given by this court in In re G.J.C.[4] The three factors identified in In re G.J.C. were not given as a definitive list of factors; rather the court stated that those three factors were “proper” factors to consider “in the context of a best-interest determination.” 2016 UT App 147, ¶ 24. Indeed, the court explicitly instructed that a best interest determination must be “based on the totality of the circumstances.” Id. This court reaffirmed and elaborated on this “holistic” approach in In re B.T.B., when it instructed “courts to examine all of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the child’s situation” and, in particular, “to explore whether other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family, short of imposing the ultimate remedy of terminating the parent’s rights,” in order to satisfy the legislature’s requirement that termination be limited to circumstances where it is “strictly necessary.” 2018 UT App 157, ¶¶ 47, 54–55.
¶17 Because of the court’s narrow focus on only three factors pertaining to the best interest analysis, its findings do not reveal whether the court considered a number of additional factors relevant to determining if termination of Mother’s rights was in Child’s best interest, including the fact that Child’s prospects for adoption by Fiancée were speculative, Child’s bond with Mother and any benefits of him continuing a relationship with Mother, and the effect of termination on Child’s relationship with his extended family, including his half-sister.[5] Further, while the court’s analysis emphasized Child’s need for stability, it is unclear how terminating Mother’s parental rights would achieve that goal. Child was not in DCFS custody or a short-term placement with a foster family with an unsettled future. Rather, Father had permanent sole legal and physical custody of Child. Child would continue to be raised primarily by Father and Fiancée, regardless of whether Mother’s parental rights were terminated. And while termination would free Child for adoption by Fiancée, Fiancée was not in an immediate position to adopt Child, and it was not certain that she would ever be in such a position, as she and Father were not actually married. Even the danger anticipated by the juvenile court if Mother eventually resumed her relationship with her co-defendant was mostly speculative, as the co-defendant would not be released from prison for many years. See In re D.R.A., 2011 UT App 397, ¶ 21 (determining that the State had failed to establish that termination was in a child’s best interest in part because “the benefits of severing” the parent–child relationship were “too speculative”). Finally, the court’s determination that termination was strictly necessary was not supported by an appropriate exploration of feasible alternatives to termination. See In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 55. Therefore, the juvenile court’s findings do not support its determination that termination was in Child’s best interest.
CONCLUSION
¶18 Because the juvenile court did not employ the correct holistic analysis in assessing whether termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s best interest and its findings do not support such a determination, we vacate the court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[6]
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
———————————————————–
[1] Utah law requires a prospective adoptive stepparent to be married to the child’s custodial parent and to have lived with the custodial parent and the stepchild for at least one year prior to entry of the final decree of adoption. Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6¬ 117(2)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2019); id. § 78B-6-136.5(2)(a) (2018). Thus, as of the termination trial, Fiancée was at least one year away from being able to adopt Child.
[2] Mother has another child who was not included in the termination proceedings.
[3] Father argues that the juvenile court was not required to engage in the “strictly necessary” analysis prescribed by In re B.T.B. because that case was decided after the court issued its oral ruling in this case. However, Father makes no effort to explain why we should not apply this analysis. The “strictly necessary” language has been part of the statute since 2012, Act of March 7, 2012, ch. 281, § 6, 2012 Utah Laws 1331, 1334; In re B.T.B. merely interpreted that statutory language. And upon interpreting the language, the In re B.T.B. court sent that case back to the trial court for reconsideration: “Because we clarify and partially reformulate the test for termination of parental rights, we remand this case to the juvenile court for reconsideration in light of this opinion.” 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 2, 436 P.3d 206, cert. granted, 440 P.3d 692 (Utah 2019). Father also fails to acknowledge that the juvenile court’s final written order was actually signed one month after In re B.T.B. was issued. We therefore reject Father’s assertion that the court’s failure to engage in a more thorough “strictly necessary” analysis should be ignored on appeal.
[4]In re G.J.C. has limited utility in any event because it employed the now-disavowed principle that “where grounds for termination are established, the conclusion that termination will be in a child’s best interest follows almost automatically.” 2016 UT App 147, ¶ 25, 379 P.3d 58 (quotation simplified); see also In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶¶ 22–44 (disavowing the “almost automatically” line of cases).
[5] Our analysis should not be construed as prohibiting courts from focusing on those factors that it finds to be most probative in a particular case; not every factor will be relevant in every case, and even where evidence of a particular factor is present, a court may reasonably discount the factor and decline to discuss it in detail in its findings. The court’s ruling in this case is problematic not because it focused on limited relevant factors but because it misconstrued the best interest test as being limited to those factors and because it did not examine the feasibility of less-drastic alternatives to termination.
[6] Our decision should not be read as dictating any particular result on remand. Indeed, any number of circumstances may have changed since trial, and the court should take such changes into account in reconsidering its decision. On remand, the court should expand its analysis of best interest to consider the totality of the circumstances, examine the feasibility of alternatives to termination, supplement its findings, and assess whether termination is in Child’s best interest in light of any such supplemental findings.
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF C.R.C., A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. S.C. AND D.C.,
Appellants,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Opinion
Nos. 20190233-CA and 20190234-CA
Filed September 19, 2019
Eighth District Juvenile Court, Vernal Department
The Honorable Ryan B. Evershed
No. 1142757
Emily Adams and Jeffry K. Ross, Attorneys for Appellant S.C.
Erin Bradley, Attorney for Appellant D.C.
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M. Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE KATE APPLEBY authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES RYAN M. HARRIS and DIANA HAGEN concurred.
APPLEBY, Judge:
¶1 S.C. (Mother) and D.C. (Father) (collectively, Parents) appeal the juvenile court’s termination of their parental rights as to C.R.C. (Child).[1] Mother argues that insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s determination that grounds existed to terminate her rights. Parents also argue that terminating their rights is not in Child’s best interest. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 In early 2017, police discovered that Father had downloaded hundreds of photographs and videos of child pornography. Many of the images involved children as young as newborns and toddlers. Father admitted to downloading the images and was arrested. He has been incarcerated since. Police informed Mother of the allegations against Father and warned her that Child, who was born shortly after Father’s arrest, was not safe around him. Mother was advised to seek a protective order for Child against Father, but she never sought one. Police eventually obtained an ex parte protective order on Child’s behalf. The protective order prohibited Father from having contact with Child unless the visit was supervised by the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). Despite this court order, Mother took Child to the prison to see Father. This incident was reported to DCFS and Mother was reminded not to allow contact between Child and Father.
¶3 In March 2017, Father was temporarily released from jail to obtain a psychosexual evaluation. Mother asked if Father could see Child during his release, but DCFS again instructed her not to allow contact between them. Mother ignored these instructions and allowed Father to spend “unfettered and unsupervised” time with Child. Mother told DCFS she permitted the contact because Father was not a risk to Child. After this incident came to light, DCFS removed Child from Mother’s custody and Child was placed in foster care.
¶4 While Child was in foster care, Mother was required to complete a reunification plan (Plan), which included, among other things, (1) establishing safe and stable housing for herself and Child, (2) maintaining contact with her caseworker so she could have parent time with Child, (3) completing a parental fitness evaluation, (4) completing a parenting class and working with a “peer parent,” and (5) complying with the no-contact order by preventing Father from contacting Child.
¶5 In accordance with the Plan, Mother sought a parental fitness evaluation. But the juvenile court concluded that she was unable to complete it because she “could not understand many of the questions, even when they were read to her” and that the “evaluation raised many concerns regarding Mother’s ability to adequately parent” Child. The evaluation report concluded that Mother has an intelligence quotient “in the extremely low range of intellectual classification” and that Mother has an overall intellectual capacity of a ten- or eleven-year-old child. But the court noted that Mother improved her housework and parenting skills after attending behavioral therapy. Overall, the court concluded that Mother could not be a successful parent without “maintaining firm boundaries and obtaining a support system.”
¶6 Mother attempted to obtain an adequate support system. First, she identified her own mother (Grandmother) as a potential supervisor. Grandmother participated in a parental fitness evaluation, but this demonstrated that she, too, suffered from serious intellectual deficiencies. The court found that Grandmother and Mother frequently undermined each other and that Grandmother had a boyfriend who could not pass a background check. The court concluded that Grandmother was an inappropriate supervisor for Mother and Child. Next, Mother identified her father (Grandfather) as a potential supervisor. Grandfather resided in Colorado and therefore was not an option as a long-term supervisor. Finally, Mother identified a friend (Friend) as a potential supervisor. Friend agreed to supervise Mother’s parent-time with Child and Friend was found to be an adequate supervisor. Friend testified that the get-togethers went well. Friend began attending family team meetings with Mother and provided her support “in many ways.”
¶7 But in early 2018, Friend discovered that Mother had been dishonest with DCFS regarding her contact with Father and became concerned about Child’s safety. At trial, Friend’s daughter testified that she was driving with Mother one day and asked Mother whether she had any overnights planned with Child. Mother responded, “[N]o, I think [DCFS personnel] know if I had overnights then I would call [Grandfather] to come get us and I would leave with them.” Mother added that she “couldn’t wait until she had her family back together” and she wanted to have “more kids” with Father. After this, Friend stopped providing support to Mother. The court concluded that Mother was never able to establish the long-term support system she needed to be reunited with Child.
¶8 Mother’s parental fitness evaluation report also noted Mother struggled to maintain firm boundaries and observed that this made her “an easy target to be taken advantage of due to her [intellectual] difficulties.” Friend reported to DCFS that Mother had “significant secret contact with Father in prison.” DCFS asked Mother about this and Mother “adamantly denied any contact” and expressed her desire to divorce Father because any contact would be harmful to Child. Nevertheless, Mother continued to contact Father. In September 2017, a caseworker again asked Mother if she had spoken with Father, and Mother said she had not. But in the two months following this conversation, Mother spoke with Father on the telephone for 443 minutes and deposited $632 in his prison account. After this, Mother met with a caseworker and again denied having any contact with Father. That same day, Mother had a 27-minute phone call with him. At a family team meeting several months later, Mother stated she had no contact with Father even though she made four separate phone calls to Father that day for a total of 58 minutes. From the first time Mother told her caseworker she had no contact with Father until the family team meeting, Mother had 428 phone calls with Father and deposited $2,358 in his prison account. At another family team meeting, Mother was again warned not to have any contact with Father. Between that time and the permanency placement hearing one month later, Mother spoke to Father on the telephone 32 times for a total of 307 minutes. Over the next several months, Mother had 16 in-person prison visits with Father, had approximately 650 phone conversations with him, and deposited $1,135 in his prison account.
¶9 The court found Mother’s continual contact with Father “very concerning” on many levels because “Father [was] a danger to [Child] and Mother was made aware of this.” It stated, “Mother has demonstrated that she is committed to Father and does not believe he is a risk to [Child]” and has “demonstrated that she will be deceitful with DCFS and the Court in an attempt to continue the relationship.” Mother and Father were also “aware that ongoing contact between the two of them undermined Mother’s potential for success.” Based on the court’s many concerns, it concluded that Mother would not be able to protect Child from Father or other potential abusers. It also found that Mother was “an easy target to be taken advantage of” and that Child was an “easy target[] for abuse and neglect if Mother is the sole caretaker.” The parental fitness evaluation report also described Mother as “unwilling” to stay away from Father and stated that she “made the conscious decision to continue contact with [him] knowing it would be detrimental to her success.”
¶10 At the termination trial, the court concluded that Mother made significant progress on the Plan by keeping in contact with her caseworker and seeing Child on a regular basis, obtaining a parental fitness evaluation, completing the parenting class, complying with the peer-parenting program, and establishing housing. But it concluded that she “was never able to complete the goals of the Plan by providing an appropriate home for [Child] where [Child] would be safe from abuse and neglect.” In point of fact, the court was concerned with Mother’s continual contact with Father, her belief that he was not a threat to Child, and her lack of a support system.
¶11 The juvenile court found that several grounds supported terminating Parents’ parental rights. First, it concluded that they were “unwilling or unable to avoid their parental incompetence” and neglect. It found that Father was incarcerated as a result of multiple felony convictions and that the sentence was long enough that Child would be deprived of a normal home for more than one year. Further, the fact that Father was convicted for possessing child pornography indicated his unfitness to provide adequate care to Child. It also found that Mother suffered “from an emotional illness, mental illness, or mental deficiency” that rendered “her unable to care for the immediate and continuing physical or emotional needs of [Child] for extended periods of time.” While Mother “may be able to complete up to ninety percent of the parenting required to take care of [Child],” “[Child] is not safe with [Mother] on a longterm basis without ongoing support from a third party” and “[n]o ongoing third party support was ever established.” Finally, the court found that Mother had failed to make parental adjustment[2] and was unwilling or unable to remedy the circumstances that led to Child being placed in foster care.
¶12 Next, the court determined that terminating Parents’ rights was in Child’s best interest. It found that Child was placed in foster care before she was two months old and was never returned to Mother’s care.[3] Also, Mother never reached the point where she was allowed overnight parent time during the reunification period. When Child was placed in foster care she was “very dirty,” looked “extremely sick and underweight,” and was diagnosed with failure to thrive.
¶13 Conversely, the court found that Child’s foster parents “have provided the care and stability that she never received while under the care of [Mother].” Child was “part of a permanent foster family where the parents have been married for almost 16 years, have successfully raised other children,” have “lived in the same area for years,” and have expressed a willingness to adopt Child. Further, Child and her foster parents “developed bonds of love and affection for one another.” Child has “thrived in the foster parents’ home” and “has made remarkable strides . . . both emotionally and physically.” The court stated that there “is no comparison [between] the two homes as far as parenting ability.” Child’s foster parents “significantly altered their lives to care for [Child]” and “have taken multiple steps to improve [Child’s] life and ability to function in society.” The court compared these efforts to those of Parents, who were “unwilling or unable to do the same.” Ultimately, the court concluded that Child is “settled” in the foster parents’ home, she has stronger emotional ties with them than she does with Parents, and moving her from that home would be detrimental to Child’s well-being. The court noted Mother’s “respectable effort to adjust her circumstances,” but found it was not enough to consider it in Child’s best interest to return Child to her. Ultimately, the court concluded that it was strictly necessary to terminate Parents’ rights and that adoption was in Child’s best interest because it would satisfy her need for safety, stability, and permanency.
¶14 Parents appeal.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶15 Parents raise two main issues on appeal. First, Mother contends insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that statutory grounds existed to terminate her parental rights.[4] “We apply a clearly erroneous standard in determining whether the juvenile court’s findings are based upon sufficient evidence.” In re A.W., 2018 UT App 217, ¶ 23, 437 P.3d 640 (quotation simplified). Under this standard, we will not overturn the court’s determination unless the result is “against the clear weight of the evidence” or leaves us “with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 8, 436 P.3d 206 (quotation simplified), cert. granted, 440 P.3d 692 (Utah 2019).
¶16 Second, Parents argue that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that it was in Child’s best interest to terminate their parental rights. “Due to the factually intense nature of the analysis, a [juvenile] court’s final decision regarding termination of parental rights should be afforded a high degree of deference,” and this court will overturn a termination decision only when the result is “against the clear weight of the evidence” or leaves us “with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (quotation simplified).
ANALYSIS
¶17 “To terminate parental rights, a juvenile court must make two separate findings.” In re C.T., 2018 UT App 233, ¶ 12, 438 P.3d 100 (quotation simplified). First, the court must find “that there is at least one statutory ground for termination.” Id. (quotation simplified); see also Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507 (LexisNexis 2018). “Second, a court must find that termination of the parent’s rights is in the best interests of the child.” In re C.T., 2018 UT App 233, ¶ 12 (quotation simplified).
¶18 Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that there are statutory grounds for termination. Parents also argue that termination was not in Child’s best interest. We address each issue in turn.
I. Grounds for Termination
¶19 Mother argues that the evidence presented at trial did not support the grounds the juvenile court found for terminating her rights. We disagree. A court may terminate parental rights on any one of the grounds articulated in Utah Code section 78A-6-507. “Among other things, a juvenile court may terminate parental rights if the court finds that a parent has either abandoned a child, neglected a child, or is an unfit or incompetent parent.” In re A.W., 2018 UT App 217, ¶ 35, 437 P.3d 640 (quotation simplified). Further, “when a foundation for such findings exists in the evidence, we do not engage in” reweighing the evidence on appeal. Id. (quotation simplified).
¶20 The juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights on several grounds. First, it found Mother was unwilling or unable to remedy her parental incompetence and neglect. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1)(b)–(c) (LexisNexis 2018). Second, it found that Child was being cared for in an “out-of-home placement under the supervision of the court” and Mother had “substantially neglected, willfully refused, or ha[d] been unable or unwilling to remedy the circumstances that cause[d] [Child] to be in an out-of-home placement; and . . . there is a substantial likelihood that [Mother] will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care in the near future.” See id. § 78A-6-507(1)(d). Finally, the court found Mother failed to make her parental adjustment. See id. § 78A-6-507(e).
¶21 We conclude that a sufficient foundation exists for each of the grounds the court relied on to terminate Mother’s parental rights. With respect to neglect and incompetence, the court found that Mother suffers from “emotional illness, mental illness, or mental deficiency . . . that renders [her] unable to care for the immediate and continuing physical or emotional needs of [Child] for extended periods of time.” See id. § 78A-6-508(2)(a) (Supp. 2019). Specifically, the court found that although Mother may be able to complete a majority of the tasks necessary to care for Child, Child “is not safe with [Mother] on a long-term basis without ongoing support from a third party” and a third-party caregiver was never established. Here, the court relied on the evidence that, without a support system, Mother’s mental deficiencies rendered her unable to adequately care for Child and protect her from Father. The court also found that Mother demonstrated that she valued her relationship with Father above caring for and protecting Child. The court and the parental evaluation report concluded that Mother had the ability to refrain from contacting Father and to focus on reuniting with Child, but she continued to express her desire to reunite with Father and contacted him almost daily. We conclude that this evidence provides sufficient support for the court’s finding that Mother was unwilling or unable to remedy her parental incompetence and neglect.
¶22 The court also found that Mother refused to remedy the circumstances that caused Child to be in an out-of-home placement and failed to meet the Plan’s goals. The court noted that this case was initiated because “Father has a perverse and unhealthy sexual attraction to young children and Mother was unwilling to protect [Child] from Father.” However, Mother maintained throughout the juvenile court proceedings, and on appeal, that Father is not a threat to Child and attempts to downplay her contact with Father. Mother continues to argue that she was never told, nor was it part of the Plan, that she could not be in contact with Father. The court found this argument unpersuasive and concluded, “[T]he issue of contact with Father was both implicitly and explicitly prohibited. But more importantly, Mother should know better, she should not have to be told that contact with Father, making plans to get back with Father, and reconstruct[ing] the family after he gets out of prison is a terrible and dangerous idea for [Child].” It found Mother was aware that she should not have contact with Father through her numerous discussions with DCFS, her family team, and the court. A DCFS caseworker testified that Mother “was aware from the beginning that her ongoing contact with Father would interfere with successful reunification.” Mother also demonstrated she was aware of the restriction by repeatedly lying to DCFS and others about her contact with Father.
¶23 Ultimately, the court found sufficient evidence supporting the grounds for termination. Mother failed to appreciate the risk Father posed to Child, routinely expressed her interest in reuniting with him after he got out of prison, and consistently lied about her contact with him. The extent of Mother’s contact with Father demonstrated to the court that she valued her relationship with him over establishing a support system to regain custody of Child. The court found that Mother was unable or unwilling to remedy the situation that caused Child to be placed in foster care and was unable or unwilling to remedy her parental incompetence and neglect. We conclude that ample evidence supports these findings.
II. Best Interest of Child
¶24 Parents argue that terminating their parental rights is not in Child’s best interest. We disagree. When considering terminating parental rights, a court must consider whether “termination is strictly necessary to the best interest of the child.” In re C.T., 2018 UT App 233, ¶ 12, 438 P.3d 100 (quotation simplified); see also Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2019). For termination to be “strictly necessary,” the court must find it “absolutely essential” after examining “all of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the child’s situation” and “whether other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family.” In re C.T., 2018 UT App 233, ¶ 14 (quoting In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶¶ 52–55, 436 P.3d 206, cert. granted, 440 P.3d 692 (Utah 2019)). But “a trial court’s final decision regarding termination of parental rights should be afforded a high degree of deference,” and this court will overturn a termination decision only when the result is “against the clear weight of the evidence” or leaves us “with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 8 (quotation simplified).
¶25 Father argues that terminating his parental rights is not in Child’s best interest because his child pornography possession does not make him a danger to her. But possessing child pornography is prima facie evidence of unfitness.[5] Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-508(7)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2019). Father failed to demonstrate to the court why he should be considered a fit parent and why it was not in Child’s best interest to terminate his rights.[6] We conclude that the juvenile court did not err in concluding that it was in Child’s best interest to terminate Father’s rights.
¶26 Mother also argues that it was not in Child’s best interest to terminate her parental rights. Again, the court did not err in concluding this was in Child’s best interest. The court found that it was strictly necessary to terminate Mother’s rights after it weighed the safety, stability, and permanency that Child received from her foster parents, who planned on adopting her, against Mother’s unwillingness and inability to remedy her situation preventing her from taking care of Child. The court found that Child had bonded with her foster family and did not have a “great connection” with Mother. It also found that although “Mother ha[d] made a respectable effort to adjust her circumstances, conduct[,] and condition, she ha[d] not done so to a degree sufficient to make it in Child’s best interest to return her to her care.” As a result, the court found it “strictly necessary” to terminate Mother’s parental rights.
¶27 The court also considered other placement options for Child, “including placement with a family member, guardianship with foster parents[,] and returning [Child] to Mother,” but “no option satisfie[d] [Child’s] need for safety, stability and permanency more than adoption” by her foster parents. The court found that DCFS made “reasonable efforts to provide reunification services” to Mother. Specifically, the court found that DCFS complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act and accommodated Mother’s intellectual disability, helped her obtain disability insurance, gave her travel assistance for exercising parent time with Child, helped her with the peer-parenting program, and directly supervised and assisted her with parent time. The court ruled that Mother “was able to avail herself” of these services and that her “failure in this case” was not for lack of services “but a result of her dishonesty, her unwillingness to maintain boundaries for the benefit of [Child], her unwillingness to separate herself from Father, and her inability to obtain an ongoing support [system] for herself and [Child].” We conclude the court did not err in finding that it was in Child’s best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights.
CONCLUSION
¶28 The evidence was sufficient to support a finding that grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Further, the juvenile court did not err in finding that terminating Parents’ parental rights was in Child’s best interest. Affirmed.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
———————————————————–
[1] Father filed a separate appeal but did not file an opening brief and instead joined in Mother’s brief. We therefore resolve both cases together in this opinion.
[2] “‘Failure of parental adjustment’ means that a parent or parents are unable or unwilling within a reasonable time to substantially correct the circumstances, conduct, or conditions that led to placement of their child outside of their home, notwithstanding reasonable and appropriate efforts made by the Division of Child and Family Services to return the child to that home.” See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-502(2) (LexisNexis 2018).
[3] Child has never lived with Father; he has been incarcerated since before her birth.
[4] Father concedes statutory grounds existed to terminate his rights under Utah Code section 78A-6-508(2)(e) because he is “incarcerated as a result of conviction of a felony, and the sentence is of such length that [Child] will be deprived of a normal home for more than one year.” See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-508(2)(e) (LexisNexis Supp. 2019).
[5] Utah Code section 78A-6-508(7)(a) articulates that sexual abuse or exploitation is prima facie evidence of unfitness. “Sexual exploitation” is defined as, among other things, “engaging in any conduct that would constitute an offense under Section 76-5b-201, sexual exploitation of a minor, regardless of whether the individual who engages in the conduct is actually charged with, or convicted of, the offense.” Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-105(52)(c) (LexisNexis Supp. 2019). Sexual exploitation of a minor includes knowingly possessing child pornography. Id. § 76-5b-201(1). Father was charged with ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor in 2017.
[6] Reunification was never set as a goal for Father because he “pled guilty to several felony charges of sexual exploitation of a minor.” Father does not challenge this finding on appeal.
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF C.S., C.S., AND C.S.,
PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
M.C.W.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Opinion No. 20170732-CA
Filed June 6, 2019
Fifth District Juvenile Court, St. George Department
The Honorable Michael F. Leavitt
No. 542094
J. Robert Latham, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M.
Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES KATE APPLEBY and DIANA HAGEN concurred.
CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:
CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:
¶1 In August 2017, the juvenile court granted permanent guardianship of C.S., C.S., and C.S. (collectively, Children) to their paternal grandmother (Grandmother). M.C.W., Children’s mother (Mother), filed a post-judgment motion challenging the court’s permanency order. Mother argued (1) that the court should order additional investigation into the safety, fitness, and appropriateness of Grandmother’s permanent home in another state and the relatives residing there; (2) that the evidence presented at the permanency hearing was insufficient to support Children’s permanent placement with Grandmother; and (3) that the court should grant a new trial or alter or amend its findings of fact and conclusions of law to reflect evidence presented at trial that was not included in the court’s permanency order. The juvenile court denied the motion, and Mother appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Mother has appeared before the juvenile court twice for dependency proceedings initiated by the Utah Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). In 2008, a juvenile court determined that Children were abused and neglected and removed them from Mother’s custody. The basis for the removal was Mother’s substance abuse, a drug overdose, and incidents of domestic violence. After Mother’s successful completion of reunification services, the juvenile court returned Children to her custody in 2009 and terminated further protective supervision services.
¶3 The second dependency proceeding followed Mother’s arrest on July 19, 2016. Mother and Children were residing at a shelter for victims of domestic violence when police responded to a complaint that Children were assaulting staff members and damaging the facility. When they arrived at the shelter, police learned that Mother had an outstanding warrant. She was arrested, and Children were placed in the protective custody of DCFS. The juvenile court then determined that Mother abused and neglected Children.
¶4 At the first shelter hearing in July 2016, the juvenile court found that removal of Children from Mother’s custody was necessary and in their best interests. The court determined that Children could be safely returned to Mother’s custody only if DCFS provided protective supervision. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for Children and ordered DCFS to prepare a service plan for Mother. The service plan required Mother to provide meals, maintain safe and legal housing for Children, and undertake parent training. The court also ordered Mother to refrain from using drugs and alcohol, to submit to drug tests, and not to associate with anyone under the influence of alcohol.
¶5 At a second shelter hearing in August 2016, Mother conceded that she could not keep Children safe from each other and could not prevent their destructive behavior. Mother therefore voluntarily agreed to return Children to DCFS custody. Children were placed in the temporary custody of DCFS, and the juvenile court ordered DCFS to consider Grandmother, who lived in Arkansas but who was willing to relocate to Utah to care for Children, as a potential placement option for Children. The court was aware that Grandmother had assumed periodic custody of Children over the years when Mother and Children’s father had been unable to provide for them.[1]
¶6 Thereafter, Mother requested that the juvenile court return Children to her custody. During a pretrial hearing in September 2016, the juvenile court postponed ruling on Mother’s request and allowed the State and the guardian ad litem to continue to look into other possible placements for Children. The court allowed DCFS to make a provisional placement with Grandmother, who at this point had moved from Arkansas to Utah, once she successfully completed a background check. The court also ordered DCFS to provide reunification services to Mother for twelve months.
¶7 At the subsequent adjudication/disposition hearing, the court ordered Mother to undergo a psychological evaluation, parenting training, and family therapy; to obtain stable housing and a legal means of income; and to participate in an assessment to determine the family’s needs. Mother made little progress in following this plan however. Her participation in individual therapy was a precondition for starting family therapy, but she did not think she needed therapy and did not attend any sessions for approximately five months after being notified of this requirement. The month she began attending therapy, Mother lost her job and housing, and she stopped attending family therapy. She had continued difficulties in visits with Children, and she often argued with Grandmother, the DCFS caseworker, and Children during those visits. Mother also had trouble following through with appropriate parenting skills during her parent-time and often blamed Children for the problems. During the reunification period, Mother did not maintain consistent employment or obtain stable housing. In contrast, after Children were placed with Grandmother, she consistently cared and provided for them. Grandmother relocated from Arkansas to Utah to care for Children, obtained an apartment and employment, and engaged in behavior-related training and therapy to learn how to better control Children’s problematic behaviors. Grandmother provided consistent discipline and ensured that Children attended school, therapy, and parent-time with Mother.
¶8 Mother’s permanency hearing began in July 2017 and lasted five days. Throughout the proceedings, the juvenile court recognized that it was in Children’s best interests to be placed in a guardianship with a relative if they could not be returned safely to Mother’s custody at the end of the reunification period. To that end, Grandmother had informed the court that she was “willing to have [Children] placed with her if [it was] deemed appropriate.” Because Grandmother was a permanent resident of Arkansas, she testified at the permanency hearing to the conditions she would provide for Children in Arkansas. Grandmother owned her own business and lived with her husband (Step-grandfather), Children’s aunt (Aunt), and Aunt’s two young children. Grandmother had been married to Step-grandfather for fifteen years, and he had attended classes for foster parents. They had purchased a five-bedroom house in May 2016, which was being remodeled. Grandmother informed the court about the school Children would attend, her plans to take them to school, and her intention to continue to facilitate their participation in therapy. Grandmother testified that Step-grandfather was once a drug user but that he had been drug-free for over forty years. Neither Grandmother nor Step-grandfather currently used any alcohol or controlled substances. Grandmother acknowledged that Step-grandfather once had Hepatitis C and cirrhosis, and had received a liver transplant; she also acknowledged that Step-grandfather was convicted of robbery forty-five years ago. Grandmother indicated that the records from these incidents have been sealed and that Step-grandfather eventually received a pardon from Arkansas’s governor.
¶9 Based on the evidence presented at the permanency hearing and Mother’s failure to comply with the service plan, the juvenile court found by a preponderance of the evidence that returning Children to Mother “would create a substantial risk of detriment to their emotional well-being.” The court found that guardianship with a relative was the most appropriate plan for Children and thus awarded Grandmother permanent custody and guardianship, and it terminated reunification services for Mother. The findings of fact in the court’s permanency order do not include information about Step-grandfather, Aunt, or Grandmother’s household in Arkansas.
¶10 After the permanency order was entered, Mother filed a post-judgment motion for a new trial or to amend the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The juvenile court denied the motion, and Mother appeals.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶11 Mother appeals the juvenile court’s permanency decision on several grounds. First, she contends that the court erred in denying her post-judgment request for additional investigation into Grandmother’s living situation in Arkansas. This challenge requires us to determine whether the mandatory fitness and safety provisions contained in Utah Code section 78A-6-307, applicable at the initial stages of a child welfare proceeding, also apply to a juvenile court’s permanent placement decisions. This is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review for correctness, giving no deference to the juvenile court’s interpretation. In re B.N.A., 2018 UT App 224, ¶ 8, 438 P.3d 10.
¶12 Second, Mother contends that the juvenile court’s findings of fact are insufficient to support its decision to award Grandmother permanent guardianship of Children. “We afford great deference to the juvenile court’s findings of fact,” In re A.C.M., 2009 UT 30, ¶ 8, 221 P.3d 185, and will overturn the court’s decision only “if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence,” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435. Further, we give the juvenile court “a wide latitude of discretion as to the judgments arrived at based upon not only the court’s opportunity to judge credibility firsthand, but also based on the juvenile court judges’ special training, experience and interest in this field.” In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680 (quotation simplified).
¶13 Third, Mother contends that the juvenile court improperly denied her post-judgment request for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment, arguing that the court’s permanency decision was not supported by sufficient evidence. We review motions for a new trial and motions to amend a judgment for an abuse of discretion. In re A.F.K., 2009 UT App 198, ¶ 17, 216 P.3d 980. “The [juvenile] court’s denial of a motion for a new trial will be reversed only if the evidence to support the [judgment] was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the [judgment] plainly unreasonable and unjust.” See Jessop v. Hardman, 2014 UT App 28, ¶ 10, 319 P.3d 790 (quotation simplified). Mother also contends that the factual findings set forth in the court’s permanency order were inadequate to justify the court’s legal conclusions. “We review the legal adequacy of findings of fact for correctness as a question of law.” Shuman v. Shuman, 2017 UT App 192, ¶ 2, 406 P.3d 258 (quotation simplified).
ANALYSIS
I. Fitness and Safety
¶14 Mother contends that the mandatory fitness and safety provisions of section 78A-6-307 of the Utah Code applicable to a juvenile court’s initial and temporary placement decisions made at a shelter hearing also apply to the court’s permanent placement decisions. Specifically, she argues that a harmonious reading of the statutes governing child welfare proceedings mandates that the fitness, safety, and appropriateness requirements contained in section 78A-6-307 apply throughout all phases of child welfare proceedings. When interpreting statutes, our primary objective “is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.” In re J.M.S., 2011 UT 75, ¶ 13, 280 P.3d 410. First, we look at “the statute’s plain language and presume that the legislature used each word advisedly and read each term according to its ordinary and accepted meaning.” Id. (quotation simplified). Because statutory language is often not “plain” when read in isolation, we must read it “in light of its linguistic, structural, and statutory context.” Id. (quotation simplified). “For this reason, our interpretation of a statute requires that each part or section be construed in connection with every other part or section so as to produce a harmonious whole.” Id. (quotation simplified). “If the language of the statute yields a plain meaning that does not lead to an absurd result, the analysis ends.” Murray v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2013 UT 38, ¶ 16, 308 P.3d 461 (quotation simplified).
¶15 If DCFS removes a child from a parent’s custody because of abuse or neglect, a juvenile court must determine whether the removal was reasonable and whether continued removal is necessary. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-306 (LexisNexis Supp. 2018). If the court finds continued removal necessary but the child is not returned to the custody of the child’s other parent, then section 78A-6-307(7) governs. Pursuant to that section, the juvenile court must first determine whether “there is a relative or a friend who is able and willing to care for the child.” Id. § 78A-6-307(7)(a). “If a willing relative or friend is identified under Subsection (7)(a), the court shall make a specific finding regarding” the fitness, safety, and appropriateness of the placement. Id. § 78A-6-307(10)(a). If the court makes “the finding described in Subsection (10)(a)” and the child will be placed with a relative, “the court shall, at a minimum, order” background investigations that include background checks of the relative and each non-relative who resides where the child will be placed. Id. § 78A-6-307(11). The statute also requires DCFS to visit the relative’s home. Id. All of these requirements relate back to subsection 78A-6-307(7), which explicitly states that it applies “at the time of the shelter hearing.” Id. § 78A-6-307(7).
¶16 These statutory requirements apply early on in a child welfare proceeding when the juvenile court must quickly determine who will have custody of the child until the child is able to be safely returned to the custody of his or her parent, if possible. At this stage, the court is not yet entirely familiar with all the circumstances of the case and has limited information about the parties. Therefore, pursuant to the plain language of the statute, to facilitate placement of a child with a friend or relative, the requirements in section 78A-6-307(11) are mandatory only in connection with the initial placement of the child with a willing relative or friend. Id. § 78A-6-307(11)(a).
¶17 If the juvenile court determines that continued removal of a child is necessary, it then must establish a permanency plan and determine whether reunification services are appropriate for the child and the child’s family. Id. § 78A-6-312(2). “In all cases, the minor’s health, safety, and welfare shall be the court’s paramount concern in determining whether reasonable efforts to reunify should be made.” Id. § 78A-6-312(5). If reunification services are appropriate, the court will establish a service plan that outlines certain requirements the parent must meet over a designated period to regain custody of the child.
¶18 When reunification services are ordered, they are generally not to be provided for more than twelve months. Id. § 78A-6-312(13). Once the period for reunification services has expired, the court must hold a permanency hearing to evaluate the placement goal and make a determination if it is still appropriate. See id. § 78A-6-312(16). The purpose of the permanency hearing is to determine whether the child can be safely returned to the child’s parent. Id. § 78A-6-314(2). If a parent fails to follow the service plan—that is, fails to remedy the problems that warranted the State’s intervention in the first instance—the court must decide whether to continue reunification services or make a final determination regarding parental rights, custody, and guardianship. Id. § 78A-6-314(4). At this phase of the proceedings, if the court determines that a child may not be returned safely to his or her parent, the statute requires only that “the minor’s health, safety, and welfare” “be the court’s paramount concern.” Id. § 78A-6-312(5).
¶19 In this case, Mother argues that the juvenile court was required to follow the procedures outlined in section 78A-6-307 when appointing Grandmother as Children’s permanent guardian. Specifically, Mother argues that pursuant to subsection 78A-6-307(11), before Grandmother could be awarded permanent guardianship of Children, the court was required, at a minimum, to order a background check on Step-grandfather and the other individuals residing at Grandmother’s house in Arkansas and to order DCFS to visit the Arkansas household. Mother contends that section 78A-6-307(11)’s requirements apply throughout the pendency of a child welfare proceeding. We disagree. A plain language reading of section 78A-6-307 demonstrates that the requirement for background investigations applies only to the determination of whether a child’s placement is appropriate at the commencement of the reunification period. Section 78A-6-307 sets forth the required procedures for shelter hearings and the initial placement of a child who has been removed from parental custody. Subsection (11) states that the requirements concerning background checks apply to “making the finding described in Subsection (10)(a).” Id. § 78A-6-307(11). Subsection (10)(a) sets forth the findings the court must make if a “willing relative or friend” has been identified for temporary placement until a permanent determination is reached. Id. § 78A-6-307(10)(a).
¶20 When Grandmother first moved to Utah, she completed and passed the required background check. She obtained housing, and DCFS inspected Grandmother’s Utah residence. Meanwhile, Step-grandfather remained in Arkansas. At that time, even before the initial placement, Grandmother was living by herself in Utah, so there was no statutory requirement for a background check on Step-grandfather in Arkansas.
¶21 One year later at the permanency hearing, when the juvenile court determined that Children could not be returned safely to Mother’s custody, the court’s only statutory directive in figuring out a permanent placement for Children was that the court make its determination based on the “paramount concern” of Children’s health, safety, and welfare. Id. § 78A-6-312(5). At the time of the hearing, Grandmother was still living alone in Utah, but even if she had been living with Step-grandfather in Utah or in Arkansas, a background check and a home inspection were not statutorily mandated at the permanency stage of the proceeding. Such investigation would be required at the permanency hearing only if the court found that ordering it was in the best interests of Children. “Once a court has determined that a child has been abused or neglected, that court is given broad discretion in determining the child’s permanent placement.” In re L.M., 2001 UT App 314, ¶ 19, 37 P.3d 1188. Such is the case here. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision denying Mother’s request for further investigation.[2]
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
¶22 Mother next contends that (1) the juvenile court’s findings
of fact were insufficient to support its conclusion in the permanency order that Grandmother was an appropriate permanent guardian for Children, and (2) the overall evidence presented at the permanency hearing was not sufficient to support Grandmother as an appropriate person with whom to place Children. We address each argument in turn.
A. Findings of Fact
¶23 A juvenile court’s findings of fact will not be overturned unless they are against the clear weight of the evidence. In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680. “To successfully challenge [a] juvenile court’s findings of fact,” Mother must “marshal all the evidence supporting the [juvenile] court’s findings and then show the evidence to be legally insufficient to support the findings.” See In re J.M.V., 958 P.2d 943, 947 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (quotation simplified). This requires Mother to do more than “present[] only those facts favorable to her argument.” See In re K.J., 2013 UT App 237, ¶ 38, 327 P.3d 1203. Instead, Mother must identify flaws in the evidence, and the findings resulting from it, rendering the juvenile court’s reliance on it clearly erroneous. See In re L.M., 2013 UT App 191, ¶ 17, 308 P.3d 553. “Where a party fails to marshal the evidence in support of a challenged finding, the party will almost certainly fail to carry its burden of persuasion on appeal.” In re A.J., 2017 UT App 235, ¶ 34 n.8, 414 P.3d 541 (quotation simplified).
¶24 Here, Mother does not address the factual findings the juvenile court relied on to support its conclusion that Grandmother was an appropriate permanent guardian for Children. Mother does not challenge the evidentiary basis of any of the court’s specific findings, nor does she engage in any analysis suggesting that the court’s findings did not support its conclusions. Instead, Mother focuses on the lack of certain evidence she claims might have shown that awarding permanent guardianship to Grandmother was not in Children’s best interests. Mother cannot carry her burden by merely highlighting potentially problematic issues with Step-grandfather and the lack of additional testimony about Aunt and the household in Arkansas. Rather, she “must identify flaws in the evidence relied on by the [juvenile] court that rendered the [juvenile] court’s reliance on it, and the findings resulting from it, clearly erroneous.” See Shuman v. Shuman, 2017 UT App 192, ¶ 8, 406 P.3d 258 (quotation simplified). Mother has not done so, and as a result, she has not carried her burden to show that the court’s factual findings were inadequate to support the conclusion that permanent placement with Grandmother was appropriate.
B. Evidence for the Placement
¶25 “The Utah Code provides that if the juvenile court orders reunification services for a parent, a permanency hearing shall be held at the expiration of those services . . . .” In re J.H., 2006 UT App 205, ¶ 7, 138 P.3d 70; see also Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-312(16) (LexisNexis Supp. 2018). At the permanency hearing a juvenile court has two options: either (1) order that the child be returned to his or her parent, or (2) terminate reunification services and develop a permanency plan for the child if the court “finds that returning the child to the parent poses a substantial risk to the child’s well-being.” In re S.K., 1999 UT App 261, ¶ 12 n.5, 987 P.2d 616 (quotation simplified). On appeal, Mother does not contest the court’s finding that returning Children to her custody would pose a substantial risk to Children’s well-being. Instead, she argues only that the court abused its discretion by granting Grandmother permanent guardianship, because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support that determination.
¶26 “Once a court has determined that a child has been abused or neglected, that court is given broad discretion in determining the child’s permanent placement.” In re L.M., 2001 UT App 314, ¶ 19, 37 P.3d 1188. Custody determinations will be upheld if the determinations are “consistent with the standards set by appellate courts and supported by adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.” In re J.M.V., 958 P.2d at 947 (quotation simplified). “When a foundation for the court’s decision exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not engage in a reweighing of the evidence.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435.
¶27 Here, Mother contends that the evidence presented at the permanency hearing was not sufficient for the juvenile court to establish that Grandmother was an appropriate permanent placement; specifically, she argues that Grandmother’s testimony alone did not establish proof by a preponderance of the evidence that guardianship with Grandmother was in Children’s best interests. Mother contends that further investigation into the Arkansas household and the individuals who reside there might reveal significant problems with that living situation. We are not persuaded.
¶28 When Children were removed from Mother’s care, Grandmother left behind her husband in Arkansas, relocated to Utah, rented an apartment, and obtained employment so that she could care for Children. To support Mother’s reunification efforts, Grandmother ensured that Children had transportation to school, parent-time, and therapy. She always made Children available for Mother’s parent-time and never missed any therapy appointments. Grandmother also received significant training related to Children’s behaviors. The court determined, based on the testimony and evidence presented at the permanency hearing, that Grandmother was able to help Children calm down and manage their conduct, offered consistent discipline, and created appropriate expectations for them. The juvenile court found that Children’s behaviors improved significantly while in Grandmother’s care. Children also indicated that it was their desire to be placed with Grandmother.[3]
¶29 At the permanency hearing, the juvenile court determined that Children could not be returned safely to Mother. Consistent with the original concurrent goal for Children established at the adjudication/disposition hearing, the court found that placing Children with Grandmother was appropriate. We are not persuaded by Mother’s argument that Grandmother’s testimony alone is insufficient to establish that she and the individuals who reside in her Arkansas household will provide an appropriate living situation for Children. The judge in this case not only heard Grandmother’s testimony at the permanency hearing, which provided the court with an opportunity for “a thoughtful, experience-based evaluation” of Grandmother, see In re Z.D., 2006 UT 54, ¶ 49, 147 P.3d 401, but had also worked with Grandmother for more than a year, giving the court an extended “opportunity to judge [Grandmother’s] credibility firsthand,” see In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680. The judge’s determination has added credibility based on his “special training, experience and interest in this field.” See id. (quotation simplified). The court’s findings were supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, we are not convinced that the court went against the clear weight of the evidence in finding that Grandmother is an appropriate permanent guardian.
¶30 Mother is correct that the court could have ordered more investigation that might have uncovered something that would render placement with Grandmother less appropriate. But Mother does not indicate what potentially troubling information about Step-grandfather and Aunt may be exposed by further investigation or argue that the court did not take into account the negative information about Step-grandfather’s distant past to which Grandmother testified. Mother provides no evidence to support her speculative arguments and, because of this, fails to persuade us that the juvenile court did not consider Grandmother’s housing situation in Arkansas or Step-grandfather’s and Aunt’s histories; those issues were discussed at the permanency hearing and the court considered them.
¶31 We will overturn a juvenile court’s decision “only if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435. Because we determine that the court’s decision to grant permanent custody and guardianship of Children to Grandmother was supported by sufficient evidence, we will not disturb it. See In re C.C.W., 2019 UT App 34, ¶ 25.
III. Motion for New Trial and to Amend the Judgment
¶32 Finally, Mother contends that the juvenile court improperly denied her post-judgment motion for a new trial and to amend the juvenile court’s permanency order to include additional findings. After the entry of judgment, rule 52 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to request that the court “amend its findings or make additional findings and . . . amend the judgment accordingly.” Utah R. Civ. P. 52(b). Presuming that the additional or amended findings undermine the court’s conclusions of law, “[t]he motion may accompany a motion for a new trial under Rule 59.” Id.
¶33 In her motion, Mother sought amendment or alteration of the permanency order to include additional findings regarding facts that were allegedly discussed at the permanency hearings. One reason the court gave for its denial of Mother’s post-judgment motion is that Mother failed to point the court to the portions of the record demonstrating “which of the proposed facts were actually presented to the Court, whether they were disputed, or merely raised through questions by counsel.”[4] Accordingly, the juvenile court found that it lacked “the ability to determine if these facts were raised at trial in such a manner that the Court could find them to be true or not.”
¶34 Mother contends that because the juvenile court required her to cite the record in her motion, the juvenile court did not in fact consider any of the information Mother sought to be added to the court’s permanency order. Mother argues that the juvenile court’s alleged failure to consider her evidence “make[s] the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.” She claims that “[h]ad the juvenile court reviewed the hearing audio, it would have discovered . . . that the juvenile court, [DCFS], and Mother would benefit from additional time to gain more information.” We are not persuaded.
¶35 To the extent that the proposed findings are supported by evidence in the record, Mother has not demonstrated that the court did not consider this evidence when making its permanency decision. See In re Estate of Knickerbocker, 912 P.2d 969, 979 (Utah 1996) (stating that the court “is not required to recite each indicia of reasoning that leads to its conclusions”). As Mother acknowledges, the “juvenile court had the benefit of presiding over the permanency hearing,” and it “hear[d] the evidence first-hand.” Mother also claims that the facts supporting the amendments and alterations she sought to add to the permanency order were “discussed at length during Grandmother’s testimony.” Additionally, some of Mother’s proposed additions simply note that parts of Grandmother’s testimony have not yet been independently verified. The juvenile court was cognizant of this fact, stating that it chose to retain jurisdiction over Children “purposefully so that those unknown issues could be addressed and monitored by the Court to the extent possible.” The court’s permanency order adequately sets forth the basis for its permanency decision, and the court was not required to give further explanation as to why Grandmother’s testimony was credible. See In re S.T., 928 P.2d 393, 398–99 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). We accordingly decline to disturb the juvenile court’s ruling on this issue.
CONCLUSION
¶36 The juvenile court correctly denied Mother’s post-judgment request for additional findings because the placement provisions of Utah Code section 78A-6-307 do not apply to permanent transfers of custody and guardianship. Moreover, the court’s findings of fact were sufficient to support the permanent placement of Children with Grandmother.
Finally, Mother has not shown that the juvenile court erred in denying her request to amend the permanency order entered by the court and for a new trial.
¶37 Affirmed.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
[1] Children’s father failed to respond to the State’s petition and the court entered a default judgment against him. L.S. has an extensive history of substance abuse, domestic violence, and involvement with the criminal justice system.
[2] Mother raises some valid concerns as to a potential need for ongoing background checks and home inspections at every stage of a child welfare proceeding, especially if the award of permanent custody includes moving children out of state. But a plain reading of subsections 78A-6-307(10)–(15) demonstrates that the requirements of these subsections do not extend beyond the shelter-hearing stage of a child welfare case. A resolution in Mother’s favor on this issue would require a statutory change.
[3] A child’s desire as to whom he or she wishes to live with may be considered by the juvenile court but is not controlling. While there “is no definitive checklist of factors to be used for determining custody since such factors are highly personal and individual,” a juvenile court may consider “the preference of the child” as one of several factors, but it is not binding on the court. In re J.M., 940 P.2d 527, 535 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (quotation simplified). Best interest determinations often turn on many factors that the juvenile court “is best suited to assess, given its proximity to the parties and the circumstances.” Id. (quotation simplified). Therefore, we will affirm a juvenile court’s custody award so long as the court has not abused its discretion. Id.
[4] The juvenile court also denied Mother’s motion on a second and independent ground, stating that “Mother fails to show that the proposed facts are necessary to a conclusion that Grandmother be appointed as permanent guardian.” Because Mother failed to address the second reason for the denial of her post-judgment motion her challenge necessarily fails. See Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Ass’n v. Jesse Rodney Dansie Living Trust, 2015 UT App 218, ¶ 5, 359 P.3d 655 (“[A]n appellant must address the basis for the district court’s ruling.”); Salt Lake County v. Butler, Crockett & Walsh Dev. Corp., 2013 UT App 30, ¶ 28, 297 P.3d 38 (“This court will not reverse a ruling of the trial court that rests on independent alternative grounds where the appellant challenges only one of those grounds.”).
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF K.K., J.R.K., AND M.K.,
PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
L.K.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20161023-CA
Filed March 30, 2017
Fifth Juvenile District Court, St. George Department
The Honorable Paul E. Dame
No. 1066694
Benjamin D. Gordon, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M.
Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN, KATE A. TOOMEY, and DAVID N. MORTENSEN.
PER CURIAM:
¶¶1 L.K. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights. We affirm.
¶2 “[I]n order to overturn the juvenile court’s decision [to terminate a person’s parental rights,] ‘the result must be against the clear weight of the evidence or leave the appellate court with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.’” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435 (citation omitted). We “review the juvenile court’s factual findings based upon the clearly erroneous standard.” In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only when, in light of the evidence supporting the finding, it is against the clear weight of the evidence. See id. Further, we give the juvenile court a “wide latitude of discretion as to the judgments arrived at based upon not only the court’s opportunity to judge credibility firsthand, but also based on the juvenile court judges’ special training, experience and interest in this field.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, “[w]hen a foundation for the court’s decision exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not engage in a reweighing of the evidence.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12.
¶3 Father first argues that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate grounds supporting termination of his parental rights. The juvenile court based its termination decision on several grounds, including unfitness. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1)(c) (LexisNexis 2012). The evidence in the record supports the juvenile court’s findings and determination that Father was unfit to care for his children.[1]
[1.] Pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-6-507, the finding of any single ground for termination is sufficient to warrant termination of parental rights. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6¬ 507(1) (LexisNexis 2012); In re F.C. III, 2003 UT App 397, ¶ 6, 81 P.3d 790 (noting that any single ground is sufficient to terminate parental rights). As a result, if there is sufficient evidence to support any of the grounds for termination found by the juvenile court, the termination of Father’s rights is appropriate.
For example, the juvenile court found that Father had an extensive history of both drug use and domestic violence. While Father completed one drug treatment program during the course of this case, shortly after completing the program he overdosed on prescription medication in a suicide attempt. A few months later he tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine, thereafter expressing a desire to get help for his substance abuse problems. Thus, it is clear that Father’s drug habits were not resolved by the completion of the initial drug rehabilitation program. Similarly, the juvenile court found that Father had not adequately addressed his domestic violence issues. Father began classes for domestic violence, but at the time of trial he was still months away from completion of the course.
¶4 Father’s failure to adequately address his domestic violence issues is all the more important due to his ongoing relationship with the mother of the children, who had previously relinquished her parental rights to the children. The juvenile court found that the two have a volatile history with each committing violent acts against the other. However, both have expressed their desire to maintain their relationship with the other. In fact, based on the evidence presented, the juvenile court determined that Father’s relationship with the mother is likely to continue indefinitely, which causes difficulty due not only to her unresolved domestic violence issues, but also due to her unresolved mental health and drug issues. The mother’s unresolved issues make it unsafe for the children to be around her. However, Father does not or cannot recognize these problems, believing that mother is a good mom, that the children are safe around her, and that the children would not be detrimentally affected being around her. Accordingly, due to Father’s failure to address several internal issues and to put the children’s interests ahead of the interest of the mother, the juvenile court found that the children would not be safe if it returned the children to Father’s custody. Thus, evidence in the record supports the juvenile court’s decision that Father was unfit.[2] See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12.
[2.] A court may not terminate a person’s parental rights unless it is in the best interests of the children. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-503 (LexisNexis Supp. 2016). Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s decision concerning the best interests of the children; accordingly, we do not address the issue.
¶5 Father next asserts that the juvenile court erred in determining that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children. “Reasonable efforts” has been defined as “a fair and serious attempt to reunify a parent with a child prior to seeking to terminate parental rights.” In re A.C., 2004 UT App 255, ¶ 14, 97 P.3d 706. However, the process of reunification is “a two way street which ‘requires commitment on the part of the parents, as well as the availability of services from the State.’” In re P.H., 783 P.2d 565, 572 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (quoting In re J.C.O., 734 P.2d 458, 463 (Utah 1987)). Ultimately, reasonableness is an objective standard that “depends upon a careful consideration of the facts of each individual case.” In re K.F., 2009 UT 4, ¶ 51, 201 P.3d 985. Thus, the juvenile court has broad discretion in determining whether DCFS made reasonable efforts to reunify a child with her parent. In re A.C., 2004 UT App 255, ¶ 20.
¶6 Here, in examining DCFS’s efforts to reunify the children with Father, the juvenile court noted that “[t]his is not a typical case, rather, it has been a very high-maintenance, chaotic case” due to the significant needs of every family member. When the case was initiated the parents did not trust DCFS, thereby requiring more time to establish a rapport between the caseworker and the parents. Despite this high-maintenance case, DCFS provided extensive help to Father. The caseworker coordinated appointments to obtain Father’s psychological and domestic violence evaluations, provided referrals for other services, facilitated payments for services, and provided Father with financial support, including money for a down payment on an apartment. Father also failed to take advantage of some services and internalize the lessons of others. For example, Father’s caseworker was able to place Father and the mother into a shelter that was one of DCFS’s primary resource hubs. However, Father left the facility within a week because he believed someone was exhibiting too much interest in the mother. Moreover, despite completing drug counseling Father tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. In sum, the evidence in the record supports the juvenile court’s determination that DCFS provided reasonable services to Father.
¶7 Finally, Father alleges that the juvenile court erred in denying the mother’s attempt to invoke spousal privilege to prevent her from testifying at the trial. Father alleges that the juvenile court improperly allowed a blanket application of Rule 502(e)(4) of the Utah Rules of Evidence to the mother’s entire testimony. See Utah R. Evid. 502(e)(4) (stating that an exception to spousal privilege applies “[i]f the interest of a minor child of either spouse may be adversely affected, the Court may refuse to allow invocation of the privilege”). Father alleges that the juvenile court should have more thoroughly investigated the totality of the State’s anticipated questioning to determine if it would allow the privilege to be asserted at least partially in regard to some lines of questioning. However, this argument was not adequately preserved. “[I]n order to preserve an issue for appeal the issue must be presented to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to rule on that issue.” Brookside Mobile Home Park, Ltd. v. Peebles, 2002 UT 48, ¶ 14, 48 P.3d 968. Prior to her testimony, the mother raised the argument of spousal privilege, not Father. The court eventually decided that the privilege did not apply under rule 502(e)(4). The mother was then questioned by all parties. Father never objected to any part of her testimony in regard to privilege. If Father believed that certain testimony should not have been included within the scope of the juvenile court’s previous ruling, it was incumbent upon him to object to that testimony and provide the court with reasoned arguments as to why that particular testimony should have been privileged. Contrary to Father’s, argument it was not the responsibility of the juvenile court to explore every potential line of questioning prior to issuing its initial ruling. Accordingly, because the issue was not adequately preserved, we decline to address it.
