518 P.3d 993
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- Parents (Mother S.H. and Father N.J.H.) have seven children; the two youngest (A.H. and L.H.) were placed with a foster family (Foster Family) and became tightly bonded with them.
- Paternal grandparents (Grandparents) in New Mexico were willing and able to care for all seven children; DCFS was ordered to initiate an ICPC but delayed almost four months and the ICPC approval was not completed until October 2020.
- The seven children were repeatedly split among multiple placements during proceedings; DCFS did not systematically facilitate sibling visitation and excluded the Subject Children from a summer 2020 visit with Grandparents.
- The juvenile court found statutory grounds for termination (abuse/neglect and parental substance issues) but accepted a stipulation placing the older five children with Grandparents under permanent guardianship; it nevertheless terminated Parents’ rights to the two youngest to allow adoption by Foster Family.
- Parents appealed only the best-interest/"strictly necessary" determination; the court of appeals reviewed under the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard and reversed, holding termination was not strictly necessary given a feasible kinship guardianship alternative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of parental rights was strictly necessary and in the Subject Children’s best interest | Parents: termination not necessary; acceptable kinship placement (Grandparents) existed; DCFS delays and lack of sibling visitation caused weakened bonds; guardianship would preserve sibling ties | State: adoption by Foster Family is in children’s best interest because of strong attachment and stability; termination needed to secure permanence and prevent parental re-entry | Reversed: termination not strictly necessary; clear-and-convincing evidence lacking because permanent guardianship with Grandparents would serve at least as well and preserve sibling bonds |
| Proper application of the statutory "strictly necessary" standard and evidentiary burden | Parents: court failed to explore feasible alternatives and over-emphasized short-term trauma of moving children from foster home | State: deference to juvenile court’s best-interest finding and facts showing bond with foster family | Held: appellate court clarified courts must give case-specific analysis comparing adoption vs guardianship under the clear-and-convincing standard; categorical preference for adoption because it is more "permanent" is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental right to custody and care is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental termination requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re B.T.B., 472 P.3d 827 (Utah 2020) (termination must be strictly necessary to promote child’s best interest; court must explore feasible alternatives)
- In re G.D., 491 P.3d 867 (Utah 2021) (petitioners bear burden to prove termination; appellate review applies clear-and-convincing lens to best-interest determinations)
- In re E.R., 496 P.3d 58 (Utah 2021) (standard of review for juvenile court best-interest findings; deference is limited by evidentiary standard)
- In re J.A.L., 506 P.3d 606 (Utah 2022) (a guardianship’s lesser categorical permanence than adoption is not by itself sufficient to justify termination)
- In re J.P., 648 P.2d 1364 (Utah 1982) (best-interest inquiry is broad and paramount in termination cases)