In re A.T. and J.B.J. (L.G. v. State), 2013 UT App 184

L.G. (Mother) appeals after the juvenile court terminated her parental rights to A.T. and J.B.J. and changed the plan to adoption.
Children were removed from Father’s care in 2011 after Father’s alleged drug use; DCFS placed them with paternal aunt and husband (Foster Parents).
Mother was convicted of felony drug offenses on February 4, 2011 and sentenced to 1–15 years; she was incarcerated for most of the proceedings.
Initially the court identified reunification with Father as the primary permanency goal; the court later shifted toward adoption while Mother remained incarcerated.
At a September 28, 2011 permanency hearing, the court indicated Mother’s lengthy incarceration made reunification with her unlikely; a termination trial occurred February 16, 2012.
The juvenile court concluded DCFS would be unable to provide reunification services to Mother due to her incarceration and proceeded with termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court violated 78A-6-312(25)(a) by not ordering reunification services.	Mother argues the court must order services unless it determines they would be detrimental.	State contends the court need not make a specific detrimental finding; findings showing factors suffice.	Reversed and remanded for a proper detrimental-determination under 78A-6-312(25)(a).

In re N.R., 967 P.2d 951 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (standard of review for reunification services and statutory interpretation)
State v. Davis, 2011 UT 57 (Utah) (statutory interpretation guidance for legislative intent)
Diener v. Diener, 2004 UT App 314 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (interpretation and application of domestic relations statutes)
State v. Jeffries, 2009 UT 57 (Utah) (plain-language construction of statutory terms)
Brewster v. Brewster, 2010 UT App 260 (Utah) (shall as mandatory language in statutes)
Archuleta v. Galetka, 267 P.3d 232 (Utah) (courts may consider arguments beyond written arguments; need not address every issue)