In re A.R.
2017 UT App 153
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother (C.S.) had two daughters removed in Dec 2014 after DCFS alleged methamphetamine use around the children; juvenile court adjudicated neglect and placed children in DCFS custody with reunification services.
- Over 2015–2016 Mother missed numerous drug tests, tested positive multiple times (including methamphetamine and cocaine), left and failed to complete treatment programs, and was arrested/incarcerated several times during the proceedings.
- DCFS filed a petition to terminate parental rights; trial spanned eleven days over Dec 2015–Apr 2016 and the State amended its petition mid-trial to add events (including a Jan 3 DUI arrest).
- Foster mother testified about the children’s improved adjustment in foster care and various statements the children made to her; the juvenile court admitted some of those out-of-court statements under Utah Code § 78A-6-115.
- The juvenile court found multiple statutory bases for termination (habitual drug use, continued criminal activity, failure/unwillingness to remedy circumstances, failure of parental adjustment, token support), concluded termination was in the children’s best interests, and found DCFS had provided reasonable reunification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of children’s hearsay statements under Utah Code § 78A-6-115; constitutionality of statute | Admission was error and statute unconstitutional; statements were inadmissible hearsay | Even if admission was error, statements were harmless in context of overwhelming evidence | Any error admitting the hearsay was harmless; affirmance on other grounds |
| Amendment of termination petition mid-trial (Rule 15) | Amendment and introduction of new criminal allegations prejudiced Mother and violated due process | Rule 15(b) allows pleading amendment at trial when it aids presentation and prejudice can be cured; court gave extra time/discovery | Amendment was permissible; court provided additional time and discovery; no due process violation |
| Due process — witness credibility, consideration of excluded prostitution allegations, order of presentation/discovery timing | Court improperly discredited Mother, considered excluded prostitution evidence, and forced Mother to proceed before State rested or without full discovery | Credibility determinations are for the factfinder; any consideration of prostitution evidence was limited and harmless; timing/discovery issues did not affect outcome | No due process violation; any errors were harmless though court criticized State’s discovery practices |
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination, best interests, reasonable reunification efforts, 90‑day extension | Evidence insufficient to find Mother unfit, termination in children’s best interests, DCFS made reasonable efforts, or that extension should be denied | Substantial evidence of habitual drug use, repeated incarcerations, missed tests, regression in parenting, children’s positive adjustment in foster home, and DCFS’s sustained efforts | Sufficient evidence supported termination on at least one statutory ground (habitual drug use rendering parent unable to care); termination in children’s best interests; DCFS provided reasonable reunification efforts; discretionary extension not required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 308 P.3d 553 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (discussion of hearsay exception and legislature’s power to amend evidence rules)
- In re W.A., 63 P.3d 607 (Utah 2002) (avoid addressing constitutional questions when case can be resolved on other grounds)
- H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 203 P.3d 943 (Utah 2009) (harmless error standard)
- In re I.M.L., 61 P.3d 1038 (Utah 2002) (avoidance of constitutional ruling when unnecessary)
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (standard of review for termination: high deference to juvenile court findings)
- Barrani v. Barrani, 334 P.3d 994 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (deference to factfinder on witness credibility)
- In re M.D., 336 P.3d 585 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (scope of DCFS’s duty and review of reasonable reunification efforts)
- State v. Roberts, 345 P.3d 1226 (Utah 2015) (appellate briefing obligations and appellant’s burden of persuasion)