In re A.R.
2017 UT App 154
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Children A.R. and M.R. were removed in Dec. 2014 after domestic violence and mother's methamphetamine use; DCFS obtained custody and created a case plan.
- At a Feb. 2015 dispositional hearing the juvenile court found services would not be detrimental to the children but noted reasonable services could not practicably be provided to Father while incarcerated; the court stated DCFS should provide "reasonable services," that Father should avail himself of any prison classes, and that services should be expedited once he was released. The written Disposition Order reiterated these points and said DCFS should expedite services when Father contacted them after release.
- Father remained incarcerated with ~10 months left; he was released Jan. 5, 2016 and contacted DCFS the next day.
- DCFS provided some supervised visitation but did not prepare a written service plan for Father, did not investigate his prison classes, living situation, or parole, and conceded minimal effort to provide services.
- During the termination trial (Dec. 2015–Apr. 2016) the court initially treated reunification services as having been ordered; after discovering limited DCFS effort, the court issued a March Order construing its earlier Disposition Order to mean it had never ordered reunification services for Father and then terminated his parental rights.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the juvenile court abused its discretion in retroactively interpreting its Disposition Order to say no reunification services had been ordered and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility / constitutionality of child-hearsay statute | Statute (Utah Code §78A-6-115) permits hearsay from young children to a trusted person; admissible | Father contends statute is unconstitutional; cites In re L.M. | Court did not decide constitutional challenge (reversed on other grounds) |
| Allowing amendment of verified petition during trial | State sought to amend and proceed at trial | Father objected to amendment | Not addressed because reversal on reunification-services issue |
| Whether juvenile court ordered reunification services for incarcerated Father | Court had discretion; argued later authority allowed concluding services were not required | Father argued Disposition Order and parties reasonably understood services had been ordered and State failed to provide reasonable efforts | Court of Appeals: juvenile court abused its discretion in interpreting its Disposition Order to conclude services were never ordered; reversal and remand for new trial |
| Due process challenge to termination based on inadequate services | State argued termination proper; court relied on findings of neglect/unfitness | Father argued denial of procedural rights because services were ordered but not provided and court later avoided required reasonable-efforts finding | Not reached on merits; reversal based on improper reinterpretation of prior order meant court failed to make required reasonable-efforts determination before terminating rights |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.T., 307 P.3d 672 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (held courts must order reasonable services for incarcerated parent unless services would be detrimental)
- In re A.T., 353 P.3d 131 (Utah 2015) (overruled prior panel; held reunification services for incarcerated parent required only when consistent with permanency goal)
- Uintah Basin Medical Center v. Hardy, 179 P.3d 786 (Utah 2008) (standard of review: court’s interpretation of its own order reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re A.K., 344 P.3d 1153 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (juvenile court has discretion on reunification services; appellate deference noted)
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (discusses deference to juvenile court findings)
- Clegg v. Wasatch County, 227 P.3d 1243 (Utah 2010) (courts should avoid deciding constitutional issues when unnecessary)