A.W. v. State, 402 P.3d 17

Background

Mother (AW) has cognitive and mental-health disabilities and a history of methamphetamine use; she lived with Husband (L.W.) who repeatedly perpetrated domestic violence, including fracturing Mother’s jaw while she held an infant.
DCFS removed the four children in June 2014 after multiple incidents of violence and concerns about the children’s hygiene, development, and safety.
The juvenile court ordered a reunification/service plan (Sept. 2014) tailored to Mother’s needs (mental-health treatment, domestic-violence assessment/counseling, parenting skills, abstain from illegal substances, safe housing, supervised visitation).
DCFS provided extensive individualized efforts: frequent in‑home caseworker visits, 41 in‑home therapy sessions, one‑on‑one domestic-violence instruction, referrals accommodating agoraphobia, and a 90‑day extension of services.
Mother repeatedly relapsed into substance use (admitted near‑daily methamphetamine use in June–July 2015; arrested with meth needles), permitted unsafe persons into the home, and failed to sustain learned parenting skills or to comply with substance‑abuse monitoring/treatment.
DCFS filed to terminate parental rights (Aug. 2015). At trial Mother raised an ADA claim for inadequate reasonable accommodations and moved to dismiss; the juvenile court denied relief and terminated Mother’s parental rights. The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for parental-rights termination	Mother: adopt a heightened review giving little deference because parental rights are fundamental	State: existing deferential, clearly erroneous factual review remains appropriate; Mother inadequately briefed change	Court: reject request; claim inadequately briefed and bound by precedent; no heightened standard adopted
ADA/reasonable accommodations for reunification services	Mother: DCFS failed to provide individualized assessment and sufficient ADA accommodations, and did not account for interaction of disabilities and victim status	State: DCFS made many individualized modifications (in‑home therapy, one‑on‑one DV classes, extended time) and tailored services to Mother’s needs	Court: ADA requires only reasonable modifications; record shows numerous accommodations; no additional reasonable services available; ADA claim denied
Consideration of domestic‑violence victim status	Mother: DCFS/juvenile court failed to fully account for how victimization affected ability to comply	State: services and safety planning addressed domestic‑violence needs; child safety paramount	Court: court and DCFS provided victim‑specific services (safety plan, trauma referrals); best interests/child safety control; accommodations were sufficient
Sufficiency of evidence to terminate (unfitness due to substance abuse and parenting)	Mother: recent improvements warranted weight; court overemphasized Husband’s conduct	State: clear and convincing evidence of habitual substance abuse that rendered Mother unable to care for children; children’s neglectful condition supported termination	Court: ample evidence (admissions, arrests, needles, prior fetal‑exposure finding, failure to engage in treatment/testing, children’s condition) supported finding Mother unfit due to substance abuse; termination affirmed

Key Cases Cited

In re K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (juvenile courts have broad discretion in evaluating reunification efforts)
In re K.C., 362 P.3d 1248 (Utah 2015) (ADA requires only reasonable modifications; courts assess reasonableness in light of child’s best interests)
In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (appellate standard: reversal only if decision is against clear weight of evidence)
In re E.R., 21 P.3d 680 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (review of juvenile court factual findings is clearly erroneous standard)
In re K.K., 397 P.3d 745 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (termination appropriate if any statutory ground is proven by clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Green, 99 P.3d 820 (Utah 2004) (briefing standards require developed legal analysis)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (recognizing parental rights as fundamental)