A.A. v. State
2011 UT App 397
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mother challenged the juvenile court's termination of her parental rights to her daughter, while the parental rights to her son had been previously terminated in 2010.
- Mother was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia after March 2009 hospitalization and admitted to inpatient care, with treatment noncompliance beyond a few therapy sessions.
- Daughter was placed in foster care on an adoption track; relative placements were pursued but ultimately not realized; no definite adoptive home was in place at the time of termination.
- Mother and Daughter maintained weekly supervised visits, and Daughter expressed love for and opposition to termination/adoption, while doing well in foster placement.
- The juvenile court concluded grounds for termination existed and that termination would be in Daughter's best interest, despite the lack of an available adoptive home and Daughter's wishes; the court acknowledged the difficulty but deemed permanency via adoption preferable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is termination in Daughter's best interests given no current adoptive home and ongoing mother–daughter relationship? | Mother argues continued relationship and visits are in Daughter's best interests. | State argues permanency via termination (and potential adoption) benefits Daughter. | Termination not in Daughter's best interests; reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.C.M., 2009 UT 30, 221 P.3d 185 (Utah) (two-step termination standard; best interests required)
- In re J.D., 2011 UT App 184, 257 P.3d 1062 (Utah App.) (clear and convincing standard; best interests)
- In re Z.D., 2006 UT 54, 147 P.3d 401 (Utah) (deference to juvenile court; close call not disturbed without clear error)
- In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, 171 P.3d 435 (Utah) (reweighing not allowed when foundation exists in evidence)
- Jensen v. Cunningham, 2011 UT 17, 250 P.3d 465 (Utah) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute; termination allowed when not in child's best interests)
- In re J.P., 921 P.2d 1012 (Utah Ct.App.) (permanency policy; ongoing intervention may be inappropriate where permanency is not achievable)
- In re C.L., 2007 UT 51, 166 P.3d 608 (Utah) (separate question for future petition if more permanency options arise)
- In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, 21 P.3d 680 (Utah App.) (child’s interests and desires considered in best-interest analysis)