In re A.W.
2018 UT App 217
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- In March 2016 Child (age 8) reported Father had sexually abused her; DCFS removed Child and her younger sister and the State filed criminal charges against Father.
- Juvenile court found abuse and a presumption against reunification but, on DCFS recommendation, ordered reunification services and a child-and-family plan requiring psycho-sexual and substance-abuse evaluations and court-ordered testing and therapy.
- Father admitted some touching, later pled guilty to child abuse causing serious physical injury and was placed on probation with sex-offender conditions; a psycho-sexual evaluator issued modified recommendations after the guilty plea.
- DCFS terminated most reunification services after compliance concerns; Father provided little proof of individualized sex‑abuse therapy, had inconsistent drug testing, delayed domestic-violence treatment, and admitted continued alcohol use.
- Juvenile court concluded Father was an unfit/incompetent parent (sexual abuse and failure to remediate) and that DCFS had made reasonable efforts; it terminated Father’s parental rights and placed the children with maternal grandparents.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | State/DCFS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court violated due process by delaying reunification pending criminal resolution and by relying on facts outside the record | Court impermissibly tied reunification to criminal case and considered evidence Father could not challenge | Issues were not preserved below; no exception applies | Not reached on merits—claims unpreserved; appellate court declines review |
| Whether DCFS made reasonable efforts at reunification | DCFS failed to give evaluator information timely and deprived Father of reasonable visitation and ability to comply with modified recommendations | DCFS timely developed and implemented services, supervised progress, and court made unchallenged prior findings of reasonable efforts | Finding that DCFS made reasonable efforts affirmed |
| Whether evidence supported finding Father was unfit/incompetent | Father had complied sufficiently with services and substance treatment addressed abuse; intoxication explains conduct | Father failed to complete court‑ordered sex‑specific therapy, missed drug tests, delayed services, and admitted abuse | Finding Father was unfit/incompetent supported by record; termination affirmed |
| Whether termination grounds were against clear weight of the evidence | Father argued termination was not supported because he made efforts and addiction explained conduct | Court relied on admission of sexual abuse, lack of sex‑specific treatment, noncompliance with orders, and DCFS findings | Termination supported on unfitness ground; appellate court affirms |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (preservation doctrine; parties must raise issues below)
- Kell v. State, 285 P.3d 1133 (Utah 2012) (unpreserved constitutional claims ordinarily not considered on appeal)
- Donjuan v. McDermott, 266 P.3d 839 (Utah 2011) (failure to preserve constitutional claims in custody context bars appellate review)
- In re K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (appellate review of juvenile court factual findings is for clear‑error; juvenile court afforded broad discretion)
- In re K.K., 397 P.3d 745 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (reasonableness of reunification efforts assessed case‑by‑case and given deference)
- In re B.C., 428 P.3d 18 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (termination review: appellate court will not reweigh when foundation for findings exists)