In re B.W..., 521 P.3d 896

Background:

Mother’s twins were born in Dec 2019 with positive methamphetamine/amphetamine tests (mother and umbilical cords); DCFS initiated protective-supervision services and a child-and-family plan requiring drug testing, treatment, and supervised visits.
After repeated missed tests and positive results, DCFS removed the three children (B.W., J.W., N.W.) in April 2020 and provided reunification services; Mother repeatedly failed or missed drug tests and had inconsistent therapy attendance.
Mother attended inpatient treatment May–Aug 2021 and initially succeeded, but soon moved back with the alleged father, relapsed multiple times (admitted 3 relapses/5 uses in ~2 months), and failed to sustain sobriety.
DCFS sought termination; the juvenile court found four statutory grounds (including failure of parental adjustment) based on ongoing drug use and inability/unwillingness to substantially correct the conditions that led to removal.
Grandparents sought placement, but Step-Grandfather failed DCFS background/LIS checks (initially five entries; three overturned, two remained as significant), so the court rejected kinship placement as unsuitable.
The court found termination in the children’s best interest: the foster parents had provided long-term, stable care (including specialized care for N.W.), the children bonded to them, and adoption was strictly necessary to secure permanency.

Issues:

Issue	Mother’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether clear & convincing evidence supported any statutory ground for termination	No — insuffcient evidence that any ground (abuse/neglect, unfitness, failure of parental adjustment) was proven	Yes — persistent missed/positive drug tests, relapse after treatment show inability/unwillingness to substantially correct conditions	Affirmed: at least one ground (failure of parental adjustment) supported by clear and convincing evidence
Whether termination was in the children’s best interest given proposed kinship placement with grandparents	Court failed to require clear & convincing evidence to preclude kin placement; should have considered guardianship or custodial alternatives	Court properly considered kinship, LIS background made grandparents unsuitable, and adoption by foster parents was best for permanency	Affirmed: court gave due weight to kinship, reasonably rejected grandparents, and found termination strictly necessary
Whether the court impermissibly used a "zero-tolerance" standard for relapse or had to find drug use rendered Mother unable to care for children	Relapses alone shouldn't disqualify Mother unless they render her unable to care for children	Failure of parental adjustment focuses on substantial correction of conditions that led to removal; specific finding of inability to care under §80-4-302(2) is not required for that ground	Affirmed: court appropriately applied failure-of-adjustment standard; §80-4-302(2) considerations apply to other grounds, not required here
Whether DCFS failed to adequately explore or weigh kinship safeguards (e.g., safety plan, assessments)	Grandparents were willing to comply with supervision, risk assessment, and Step-Grandfather’s work schedule limited exposure	DCFS and court reasonably relied on LIS findings showing supported severe-abuse/neglect entries that remained significant despite appeal attempts	Affirmed: court reasonably weighed LIS status and declined placement; Mother/Step-Grandfather could have provided more evidentiary proof but did not

Key Cases Cited

In re B.T.B., 472 P.3d 827 (Utah 2020) (articulates two-part statutory test for termination and the "strict necessity" standard for best-interest analysis)
In re E.R., 496 P.3d 58 (Utah 2021) (standard of review for termination: overturn only if against clear weight of evidence)
In re J.M., 463 P.3d 66 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (single statutory ground suffices to meet element one of termination test)
In re A.H., 518 P.3d 993 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (reversed termination where court failed to show termination was strictly necessary given viable kinship alternative)
In re L.A., 402 P.3d 69 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (interpreting §80-4-302(2) considerations as applying to unfitness/neglect determinations)
In re J.P., 502 P.3d 1247 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (upholding refusal of kin placement where one household member had a problematic history)