484 P.3d 431
Utah Ct. App.2021Background
- Child born May 2017; in Dec. 2017 the mother stabbed the father in the child’s presence, prompting a no-contact order and DCFS involvement.
- By March 2018 the child was placed in DCFS temporary custody and adjudicated dependent as to the father.
- May 2018 disposition: reunification was primary goal; court ordered services including domestic-violence assessments and required the father be treated as a victim in domestic-violence therapy.
- Parents showed intermittent progress; in Nov. 2018 there was another domestic-violence incident in the child’s presence. Father’s therapy attendance and housing stability remained inconsistent.
- Court twice extended reunification services but warned father to secure stable housing, childcare, and to disengage from the mother; mother later voluntarily relinquished her parental rights.
- Trial (Jan. 2020) and termination order (Feb. 2020): juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights under multiple statutory grounds, principally finding he failed to remedy circumstances leading to removal (Utah Code § 78A-6-507(1)(d)); father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father failed to remedy the circumstances that caused the child’s out-of-home placement under § 78A-6-507(1)(d). | Father did not remedy dependency/home-care issues or protect the child from exposure to domestic violence; he remained involved with mother, lacked stable housing/childcare, and brought mother to visits after she relinquished rights. | Father had made progress (employment, reduced drug use), was treated as a domestic-violence victim, received mixed messages from DCFS about mother’s presence at visits, and contends evidence does not meet clear-and-convincing standard. | Affirmed. Court found clear-and-convincing evidence father failed to remedy both dependency-related conditions and risk of domestic violence; last-minute stability measures were insufficient. |
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion or misapplied victim status by failing to evaluate the father properly as a domestic-violence survivor. | State: court ordered victim-oriented treatment for father and evaluated his conduct in light of child safety, not gender. | Father: court applied a double standard and did not adequately treat him as a survivor when assessing remedial efforts. | Rejected. Court provided victim treatment but reasonably weighed father’s continued relationship with mother and resultant risk to the child; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (2007 UT 82) (standard of review and weight to give present-ability evidence when parent shows late improvements)
- In re L.M., 453 P.3d 651 (2019 UT App 174) (victim-parents who remain in abusive relationships may be found to have failed to remedy removal circumstances)
- In re J.M.V., 958 P.2d 943 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (dependency adjudication rebuts presumption that custody with natural parent is best)
- In re Z.D., 147 P.3d 401 (2006 UT 54) (appellate deference to juvenile court’s factual findings in close-call termination decisions)
- In re T.M., 147 P.3d 529 (2006 UT App 435) (affirming termination where parent prioritized relationship with abuser over child safety)
- In re B.T.B., 472 P.3d 827 (2020 UT 60) (termination requires both statutory ground and best-interest finding; termination must be strictly necessary to promote child welfare)