H.K. v. State
285 P.3d 772
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mother challenged the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights to five-year-old Daughter and one-year-old Son on February 25, 2011; DCFS had removed Daughter three times and Son once prior to termination.
- Daughter’s first removal (Oct 2007) occurred while Mother was incarcerated; grandmother cared for Daughter but allowed Mother’s partner to care at times, leading to injury concerns and a court-ordered protective placement.
- Daughter was returned in March 2008 with protective supervision after earlier removal.
- Daughter’s second removal (Feb 2009) followed exposure to Mother’s violent partner despite court orders against contact; Mother missed drug tests and failed to inform DCFS of employment loss.
- Mother’s pregnancy with Son involved continued missed drug tests and drug court issues; Father participated in the plan but later skipped tests and left town.
- Daughter’s third removal (Sept 2010) occurred as Mother and Father planned to take the children out of state in violation of a prior order; Mother was arrested day before they planned to flee; DCFS filed a petition for custody and termination; the court relied on 206 deemed admissions and accompanying evidence to terminate rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate rights | Mother argues procedural defects after final removal void jurisdiction. | State contends jurisdiction exists under 78A-6-108 for termination proceedings. | Jurisdiction proper under 78A-6-108(g); court had authority to proceed with termination. |
| Whether deemed admissions violated due process | Mother claims admissions used to establish grounds for termination violated due process. | State argues admissions were properly used and any error harmless. | Preservation failed; admissions upheld as harmless given corroborating evidence. |
| Whether the court should have withdrawn the admissions | Mother argues for withdrawal to correct errors. | State defends denial of withdrawal as within court discretion. | Withdrawal not required; any abuse shown was harmless. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to establish grounds for termination | Mother asserts insufficient evidence of parental unfitness. | State contends clear and convincing evidence supported grounds. | Evidence supported grounds (neglect/abuse, unfitness, token efforts) and best interests finding. |
| Best interests of Son supported termination | Mother argues Son would benefit from parental support if rights not terminated. | State contends Father’s rights alone would not ensure safety and stability; Mother unable to provide support. | Termination in Son’s best interests based on risk of harm and lack of progress. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.Y.T., 2011 UT App 407, 267 P.3d 930 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2011) (affirms use of clear error review; appellate deference in termination cases)
- In re Z.D., 2006 UT 54, 147 P.3d 401 (Utah Supreme Court, 2006) (adoption of appropriate standard of review in termination appeals)
- In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, 171 P.3d 435 (Utah Supreme Court, 2007) (best interests and standard of review guidance in termination cases)
- In re A.C.M., 2009 UT 30, 221 P.3d 185 (Utah Supreme Court, 2009) (two-step termination framework: grounds plus best interests)
- In re E.R., 2000 UT App 143, 2 P.3d 948 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2000) (discretion regarding admissions; best interests considerations)