In re A.B., 523 P.3d 168

K.T. (mother) left her daughter A.B. with relatives (S.T. and T.T., aunt and uncle) from May 2018 through the 2018–2019 school year and moved to North Carolina; aunt and uncle later sought custody and a protective order alleging abuse/neglect.
The juvenile court found neglect and awarded custody to aunt and uncle, citing (1) "emotional maltreatment," (2) repeated long placements with relatives without support, (3) mother's physical/mental health impairing parenting, and (4) mother's failure to assist financially.
Mother appealed; the court of appeals treated the question whether the facts met the statutory neglect definition as a law-like mixed question and reviewed de novo, reversing because the juvenile court’s conclusions did not correspond to any statutory ground for neglect.
The court of appeals also declined to affirm on the alternative theory of abuse, finding the juvenile court had not made findings sufficient to establish statutory abuse.
The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the court of appeals: (1) de novo review was appropriate; (2) the reversal of neglect was correct because petitioners had waived the emotional-maltreatment argument and failed to meet their appellate burden to show a statutory ground; and (3) declining to affirm on abuse was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Mother's Argument	Held
Standard of review for neglect determination	Court of appeals should have applied deferential review per In re E.R.; juvenile-court factfinder deserves deference	Application of neglect statute is a law-like mixed question; de novo review appropriate	Court: law-like mixed question; de novo review appropriate
Whether juvenile court erred by not finding statutory neglect	Juvenile-court findings (emotional maltreatment, pattern of leaving child, mother’s illness, nonpayment) satisfy one or more statutory neglect grounds	Facts do not satisfy any of the six statutory neglect grounds; emotional maltreatment is not neglect and was conceded below	Court: affirmed reversal — petitioners waived emotional-maltreatment claim and failed to carry burden to show statutory grounds met
Whether court of appeals should have affirmed on alternative ground of abuse	Record supports emotional abuse and serious impairment; appellate court should affirm on that ground	Juvenile court did not make findings sufficient to meet statutory abuse (serious impairment)	Court: no abuse of discretion in declining to affirm — findings not clearly sufficient to establish statutory abuse

In re E.R., 496 P.3d 58 (Utah 2021) (applies Levin three-factor test to classify mixed questions in juvenile proceedings)
State v. Levin, 144 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2006) (three-factor framework distinguishing law-like vs fact-like mixed questions)
K.Y. v. Div. of Child & Family Servs., 244 P.3d 399 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (held emotional maltreatment cannot be construed as statutory "neglect")
Olguin v. Anderton, 456 P.3d 760 (Utah 2019) (appellate discretion to affirm on an alternative ground must be based on record and findings)
State v. Brake, 103 P.3d 699 (Utah 2004) (appellate review of court of appeals decisions for correctness)