In re D.R., 521 P.3d 545

Background:

In March 2021 DCFS removed the eight‑year‑old Child and set a reunification plan requiring mental‑health and substance‑abuse evaluations and treatment, random drug testing, stable housing, a domestic‑violence assessment, and no exposure to domestic violence.
Over ~4 months Mother missed numerous drug tests (21 missed; completed tests were positive for methamphetamine), missed visits (including Child’s birthday), did not secure stable housing, had continued contact and a new domestic‑violence incident with Child’s father, and obtained a new drug‑possession charge in Colorado.
The juvenile court found Mother largely unengaged and unwilling to participate, concluded an additional 90 days would not achieve the plan’s objectives, terminated reunification services, and changed the permanency goal to adoption.
Mother moved to reinstate reunification under the ADA, claiming a brain arteriovenous malformation (AVM) that slowed her ability to complete tasks and requesting “more time” as an accommodation; she did not identify other specific accommodations prior to the motion.
The juvenile court denied the ADA motion because Mother failed to identify a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled her to complete reunification objectives; later the court terminated her parental rights and she appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Mother was not a qualified individual under the ADA for lack of a demonstrated reasonable accommodation and rejecting her ineffective‑assistance claim as speculative.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s motion to reinstate reunification services on ADA grounds	Mother: AVM slowed her ability; she needed additional time and the court/DCFS had an obligation to identify reasonable accommodations	State: Mother never identified a specific reasonable accommodation; no evidence additional time would enable compliance; burden is on parent to show needed modifications	Affirmed — Mother did not show a reasonable accommodation that would enable compliance; court had no duty to invent accommodations Mother never requested
Whether Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to secure ADA relief or present witnesses/experts	Mother: Counsel should have called family members and an expert to prove her disability’s effects	State: Claims are speculative; record lacks affidavits or extra‑record evidence showing what testimony would have proved	Affirmed — No nonspeculative evidence of deficient performance or prejudice; remand for an evidentiary hearing denied

Key Cases Cited

In re K.C., 362 P.3d 1248 (Utah 2015) (articulates ADA standard for a “qualified individual” in juvenile‑court reunification context and contemplates identification of requested modifications)
In re K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (explains deference to juvenile court on credibility and reunification‑services decisions)
In re C.C., 402 P.3d 17 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (upheld ADA defense rejection where parent failed to identify any specific accommodation denied by DCFS or the court)
In re C.M.R., 473 P.3d 184 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (discusses ineffective‑assistance standards and the need for extra‑record evidence to support remand)
In re S.H., 155 P.3d 109 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (authorizes remand to develop factual findings on ineffective‑assistance claims)