493 P.3d 81
Utah Ct. App.2021Background
- Two children (A.H., age 4; N.H., age 2) were removed after reports of parental drug use and an August 2017 domestic-violence incident; parents were ordered no-contact and DCFS custody continued with reunification services ordered.
- Father’s individualized service plan required drug testing, substance-abuse and domestic-violence treatment, parenting classes, supervised visits, stable housing, and financial support.
- Over the first year Father inconsistently complied: missed call-ins, tested positive for THC multiple times, delayed psychological testing, and refused home inspections; DCFS and the GAL repeatedly sought a permanency hearing.
- After extensions of services, the juvenile court terminated reunification services at the second permanency hearing (Nov. 2018) and DCFS later petitioned to terminate parental rights as to A.H. and N.H.
- At trial Father had made substantial progress and had the newborn sibling returned to him, but the court found his earlier, prolonged lack of timely engagement had substantially damaged his relationship with the children (especially N.H.) and entered termination on five statutory grounds and best-interest findings.
- Father appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel, that DCFS did not provide reasonable reunification efforts, and that the court erred in finding Father unfit; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel misfocused on relitigating adjudication, over-relied on Ombudsman report, misunderstood law/process, and elicited harmful evidence | Counsel’s performance did not prejudice outcome given multiple independent statutory grounds and extensive adverse evidence | No prejudice shown under Strickland; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| Reasonable efforts by DCFS | DCFS delayed PCCIT and other parenting supports until too late, undermining reunification prospects | DCFS provided a broad array of services over >12 months; Father largely failed to participate timely | Juvenile court did not clearly err; DCFS made reasonable efforts; Father’s lack of timely engagement dispositive |
| Termination on ground of unfitness (and related statutory grounds) | Father had substantially rehabilitated by trial and had custody of the newborn, so unfitness finding was unsupported | Father’s prolonged delay in completing services, ongoing relationship with Mother (domestic violence), lack of financial support, and damaged parent-child bonds supported grounds | Multiple statutory grounds were supported by clear and convincing evidence; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- In re B.T.B., 472 P.3d 827 (Utah 2020) (two-step termination framework; best-interests and necessity)
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (weight of present ability evidence depends on duration and effect of past conduct on parent-child bond)
- In re M.L., 965 P.2d 551 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (importance of timely permanency and harm from parental inaction)
- In re J.M., 463 P.3d 66 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (appellate deference to juvenile court findings on statutory grounds)
- In re C.Z., 484 P.3d 431 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) ("too little, too late" principle in parental adjustment analysis)