A.J. v. T.M., 327 P.3d 1203

K.J. (born April 2010) was abused and neglected after injuries suggesting inflicted trauma, leading to removal and out-of-home placement in 2010.
Mother and Father are K.J.'s natural parents; Father had minimal involvement and did not seek rights or support; Mother sought reunification through the Plan.
The juvenile court adjudicated K.J. abused/neglected on September 1, 2010 and ordered reunification services with Mother as primary permanency goal.
A permanency hearing was set for early 2011; Mother completed many Plan goals but lacked stable housing and employment, and failed to pay child support when employed.
In March 2011 the State sought termination; a third-party petition was filed by Foster Parents in May 2011; in August 2011 the State withdrew its petition and trial was set for November 2011.
In November 2011 the court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights; Mother appeals arguing about reunification timelines and the weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Act reunification/timelines applicable here?	Mother contends timelines apply only to Division petitions.	Division or private petitioner both fall under Act timelines.	Act timelines apply to this proceeding.
Did the Act preclude further reunification time?	There was some time left for reunification under subsec. (18)(c).	More than fourteen months elapsed; reunification services must terminate and permanency determined.	Act precluded additional reunification time; termination proper.
Was the termination decision against the clear weight of the evidence?	Mother argues evidence did not prove failure to adjust or unfitness.	Court properly weighed past conduct with present abilities and found unfitness and best interests supported.	termination not against the clear weight of the evidence.
Was the best-interest determination supported by the record?	Best interest hinged on placement plan; misinterpretation undermined result.	Division plan contemplated maternal grandmother; Court properly found adoption best.	Best-interest determination supported.

In re S.F., 268 P.3d 831 (Utah App. 2012) (interpretation of Act timelines and standard of review)
In re A.K., 285 P.3d 772 (Utah App. 2012) (clear-error standard; weighing past vs present abilities)
In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (burden-shifting in termination proceedings; parental adjustment standard)
In re J.B., 58 P.3d 958 (Utah App. 2002) (burden-shifting after evidence supports termination grounds)
In re K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (marshalling burden; standard for reviewing factual findings)