In re A.K. (T.K. v. State)
2015 UT App 39
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Mother has three biological children: E., J.P., and A.K., with a history of domestic violence and substance abuse issues.
- E. was removed in 2006 in California; reunification failed and parental rights were terminated in 2008.
- J.P. (born 2009) was removed in 2010 for similar issues; reunification services were provided but ultimately ended with continued removal.
- A.K. (born 2011) remained with Mother initially, but June 2013 circumstances led to DCFS custody jeopardy following parental incarceration.
- DCFS filed a Verified Petition seeking custody/guardianship of J.P. and A.K.; the court found them neglected and in danger due to parenting issues and domestic violence.
- Permanency hearings led to a goal of adoption for A.K. and termination of parental rights for both parents; Mother appealed the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly found a presumption against reunification services | Mother argues the presumption should be rebutted by evidence she presented. | State contends the presumption is supported and properly weighed by the court. | Presumption against reunification services supported; court did not err. |
| Whether the court properly weighed evidence of failure to respond to services and violent history | Mother contends the court misweighed her responsiveness and violence history. | State asserts the court properly weighed factors under 78A-6-312(22). | Court did not abuse discretion; weighed factors appropriately. |
| Whether termination of parental rights was supported by the clear weight of the evidence | Mother asserts recent efforts should offset past conduct. | State argues long history of instability and ongoing drug use outweigh improvements. | Termination supported by clear weight of the evidence. |
| Whether the Foster Mother testimony was improperly admitted due to bias | Mother claims testimony was inherently biased and prejudicial. | State contends foster testimony is proper to assess integration and bias is cross-examined. | Court did not abuse discretion; Foster Mother testimony properly admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.R., 2007 UT 82 (Utah) (long-term drug use not outweighed by short-term efforts; defer to juvenile court)
- In re N.R., 967 P.2d 951 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (parents have no constitutional right to reunification services; defer to trial court)
- In re S.Y.T., 267 P.3d 930 (Utah App. 2011) (facts recited in light most favorable to juvenile court findings)