A.W. v. State (In Re State Ex Rel. K.W.), 420 P.3d 82

Father suffered bipolar disorder with psychotic features, memory/cognitive impairments from past brain injuries/surgery, a history of drug convictions, recent substance use, and homelessness; his two children were removed in March–April 2016 after Father sought help at a shelter and was hospitalized.
The juvenile court ordered reunification services (mental-health evaluation/treatment, substance-abuse assessment/testing, visits, ARS) and directed DCFS to modify the plan to accommodate Father (including offering transportation and writing requirements down).
Father was often unreachable, emotional, paranoid, and inconsistent; he refused or failed to attend scheduled evaluations and testing, refused drug testing, declined shelter housing, and stopped cooperating with DCFS over time.
DCFS attempted accommodations: caseworker rides early on, later bus passes, arranging park and office visits, and outreach at the park where Father stayed; Father did not request further specific accommodations under the ADA during the reunification period.
The juvenile court found DCFS made reasonable efforts; after findings of statutory grounds, it changed the goal to adoption and terminated Father’s parental rights in March 2017.

Issue	Father’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether DCFS failed to provide ADA-mandated reasonable modifications to reunification services	DCFS did not sufficiently modify services (transportation, communication, and a family-supported parenting alternative) to accommodate Father’s disabilities	DCFS offered reasonable accommodations (transportation offers, written requirements, outreach); Father was uncooperative and never sought additional modifications	Court held Father failed to show clear error; DCFS made reasonable efforts under ADA principles
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	Termination was not best because a family-supported parenting plan (with Uncle/Aunt) or continued contact could have preserved Father’s rights	Children needed permanency; foster parents would facilitate contact; Father could not remedy removal reasons	Court found evidence supported best-interests finding; not clearly erroneous
Whether termination was "strictly necessary" under Utah Code § 78A-6-507	Termination was not strictly necessary because Uncle/Aunt could have guardianship/custody alternatives	DCFS policy precluded placement with Uncle due to past manslaughter conviction; court worried guardianship might disrupt current foster placement	Argument inadequately briefed; court’s finding that termination was strictly necessary was not shown to be erroneous

In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (standard of review for termination decisions is deferential; mixed question of law and fact)
In re B.A., 407 P.3d 1053 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (deference to juvenile court findings in termination proceedings)
In re K.C., 362 P.3d 1248 (Utah 2015) (ADA requires reasonable modifications to reunification plans for parents with qualifying disabilities)
In re K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (juvenile courts have broad discretion to determine reasonable reunification efforts)
In re P.H., 783 P.2d 565 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (rehabilitation requires parent’s commitment as well as availability of state services)