In re D.L. (M.L. v. State), 2014 UT App 297

M.L. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights.
The court found Father unfit or incompetent, with substantial risk he cannot provide proper care in the near future.
Father completed the service plan, including 12 sessions of PCIT; therapist projected 10–12 additional months of therapy would be required for meaningful change.
D.L. has autism; all three children have special needs requiring high structure, predictable schedules, and nurturing care.
Therapist and caseworker contemplated that adoption by the foster family with ongoing birth-parent contact best serves the children’s needs.
Court concluded it was strictly necessary to terminate parental rights and that termination was in the children’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a legally sufficient basis to terminate under 78A-6-507(1)(d).	State argues Father cannot remedy past failures and faces substantial likelihood of future incapacity.	Father contends service completion should enable reunification.	Ground supported; termination affirmed.
Whether termination is in the children’s best interests and necessary for protection.	State asserts foster-adoptive arrangement with birth-parent contact best protects needs.	Father contends placement should remain with family if capable.	Best interests and necessity supported; adoption by foster family appropriate.
Whether the claim that DCFS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts was preserved and is meritorious.	State claims the issue is not preserved for appeal.	Father argues DCFS failed to offer PCIT earlier.	Claim not preserved and meritless; rejected on appeal.

In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah Supreme Court 2007) (clear weight of the evidence standard; foundation must exist in the evidence)
In re E.R., 21 P.3d 680 (Utah Court of Appeals 2001) (clearly erroneous standard of review for factual findings)