538 P.3d 1259
Utah Ct. App.2023Background
- Child born in 2017; parents divorced with Mother having joint legal custody but Father primary physical custody.
- From May 2019–Feb 2021 Mother made ~30 reports alleging Father sexually abused the child; DCFS investigated and found no credible evidence; some reports prompted invasive hospital examinations that also found no corroboration.
- DCFS opened voluntary services, required a Child & Family Plan (psychological evaluation, therapy, parenting class, honesty with providers); Mother completed many tasks but retained suspicion of Father and used a private investigator whose interview techniques were improper.
- Evaluator diagnosed Mother with an unspecified personality disorder (borderline/histrionic/narcissistic features) and doubted effective treatment because Mother lacked insight and denied being the problem.
- Child was removed from Mother in March 2021 and preliminarily placed with Father; after a permanency hearing the juvenile court terminated reunification services and awarded permanent custody and guardianship to Father under Utah Code § 80-3-409(4)(b).
- Mother appealed, challenging (1) termination of reunification services and (2) the court’s statutory interpretation and procedures in awarding permanent custody and guardianship; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | State/Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reunification services should have been extended | Mother: she substantially complied with the Plan and was entitled to a 90‑day extension | Mother failed to remedy the underlying problem (continued unfounded allegations, lack of insight); reunification not probable or in child's best interest | Affirmed termination of services; no clear error—Mother hadn’t shown substantial compliance or that reunification was probable/best interest |
| Whether Utah Code § 80‑3‑409(4) applies when child is placed with the other parent at permanency hearing | Mother: phrase “returned to the minor’s parent” includes other parent already caring for child; juvenile court should be free to enter ordinary custody orders; asks to overrule In re H.C. | Statute’s text limits juvenile court to three options (terminate rights, adoption, or permanent custody/guardianship); In re H.C. controls | Court upheld In re H.C.; § 80‑3‑409(4) applies to the parent who received reunification services and limits juvenile court to the three statutory options |
| Whether court erred by selecting permanency goal and entering guardianship in same hearing/order | Mother: court should change permanency goal first then hold a separate review before entering guardianship | Nothing in statute prohibits acting in one hearing; when child already placed with person to be guardian no additional interim steps were required | No procedural error; court could lawfully set goal and enter order in same proceeding |
| Whether court erred in setting different permanency goals for each parent | Mother: improper and creates uncertainty | Court may set goals tailored to each parent; Mother did not object at the time and showed no prejudice on appeal | No reversible error in setting different goals for each parent |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.C., 523 P.3d 736 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (interpreting § 80-3-409(4)(b) as limiting juvenile courts to three options when reunification fails)
- In re B.H., 474 P.3d 981 (Utah 2020) (appellate standard: view evidence in light most favorable to trial court findings)
- In re D.R., 521 P.3d 545 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (deference to juvenile court on credibility and whether services were tailored/appropriate)
- State v. Rushton, 395 P.3d 92 (Utah 2017) (statutory interpretation principles: read text in context, harmonize provisions)
- In re Childers-Gray, 487 P.3d 96 (Utah 2021) (canon of consistent meaning: same term in related statutory provisions should carry same meaning)