D.D.B. v. J.L.C.
379 P.3d 58
| Utah Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Child born 2008; parents separated 2009; divorce court awarded Mother sole physical custody and Father minimal parent-time; Child has lived primarily with Mother and maternal grandparents.
- Father obtained a protective order against him in Nov 2009 but repeatedly violated court orders between 2009–2010 by threatening Mother, refusing to return Child, and interfering with custody exchanges; convicted of criminal custodial interference and later attempted kidnapping (pleaded guilty to reduced charges in 2011).
- October 2010: Father attempted to force maternal grandparents to return Child, brandished a handgun, and was later arrested; Father ultimately imprisoned (zero-to-five-year sentences) and remained largely absent from Child’s life after March 2012.
- Mother filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights in May 2014; trial held Jan 2015; juvenile court found five statutory grounds for unfitness but concluded termination was not in Child’s best interest, relying on possibility of a positive relationship with Father/extended family and absence of demonstrable psychological harm to Child.
- The juvenile court found Father had made only token efforts, had significant criminal history, unaddressed substance/mental health issues, and minimal financial support; the court nonetheless emphasized the child’s benefit from having two parents and a potential relationship with Father’s extended family.
- On appeal, the court of appeals held the juvenile court’s best-interest determination was against the clear weight of the evidence and reversed, directing termination of Father’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of Father’s parental rights was in Child’s best interest | Mother: Father’s criminal conduct, lack of support, unaddressed substance/mental health problems, long absence, and token efforts show termination is in Child’s best interest | Father: Court should preserve parental rights because Child could benefit from relationship with Father and his extended family; no evidence Child suffered psychological or physical harm | Court of Appeals: Juvenile court’s refusal to terminate was against clear weight of evidence; reversed and remanded to enter termination order |
| Whether juvenile court properly weighed statutory unfitness findings in best-interest analysis | Mother: Court found statutory grounds for unfitness and should have applied those findings to best-interest determination | Juvenile court relied on speculative future benefits and non-detriment from Father’s family to deny termination | Court of Appeals: Juvenile court improperly failed to consider its unfitness findings in best-interest analysis; such findings support termination |
| Proper deference to juvenile court’s factual findings on mixed law/fact question | Mother: Although deferential review applies, result was against clear weight of evidence | Father: Juvenile court’s factual inferences (potential for positive relationships) justified deference | Court of Appeals: Afforded deference but concluded error was clear and appellate court had firm conviction a mistake was made; reversed |
| Role of speculative future improvement vs. past conduct in best-interest inquiry | Mother: Past conduct and lack of demonstrated likelihood of near-term improvement outweigh speculation of future change | Father: Future improvement with family support could benefit Child | Court of Appeals: Speculative future improvement did not outweigh Father’s history and token efforts; best interest favors termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (mixed question of law and fact; high deference to juvenile court; reversal only if result is against clear weight of evidence)
- In re Z.D., 147 P.3d 401 (Utah 2006) (standard for overturning juvenile court decisions)
- In re R.A.J., 991 P.2d 1118 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (two-step termination analysis: statutory grounds and best-interest inquiry)
- In re T.E., 266 P.3d 739 (Utah 2011) (statutory factors for best-interest analysis, including child’s condition and parent’s effort to adjust)
- In re M.J., 302 P.3d 485 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (best-interest analysis focuses on impact of termination on the child; statutory unfitness evidence is probative but distinct)
- In re ML., 965 P.2d 551 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (weight given to present ability evidence depends on duration of prior misconduct and likelihood of near-term improvement)