2017 UT App 80
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Father (J.V.) was incarcerated for most of the last 20 years and had a parole date in June 2019; he had limited contact with the children (cared for A.V. only early; never met D.V.).
- Children were removed from Mother’s custody in August 2016, placed in DCFS custody, and lived in a foster home from September 2016 onward.
- The State successfully terminated Mother’s parental rights; DCFS petitioned to terminate Father’s rights as well.
- Juvenile court found multiple statutory grounds for terminating Father’s rights: neglect/abuse, unfitness/incompetence, children in out-of-home placement, failure/unwillingness to remedy circumstances, and substantial likelihood Father could not provide proper care soon.
- The court also found the children bonded to foster parents who were willing to adopt and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for parental neglect/unfitness | Father: Findings rested solely on lengthy incarceration; incarceration alone insufficient unless child deprived of normal home >1 year | Court: Multiple factual bases (criminal history, limited participation, never met one child, children in DCFS custody) support grounds | Affirmed: evidence supports findings beyond incarceration alone |
| Application of Utah Code § 78A-6-508(2)(e) (incarceration factor) | Father: Statute requires children be deprived of normal home for >1 year before termination | State: Statute contemplates future deprivation; not a strict past-year requirement | Affirmed: statute concerns future deprivation; court permissibly relied on it given DCFS custody and foster placement |
| Definition of “normal home” and its relevance | Father: No requirement that incarcerated parent be physically present for a normal home to exist | State: Here children will not remain/return to their normal home; facts align with prior precedent allowing consideration of incarceration when child is in DCFS custody | Affirmed: court’s finding that children would be deprived of a normal home was supported by facts |
| Best interests determination | Father: Relatives (maternal) could provide guardianship, preserve bonds, and keep children safe | State: Children are bonded to foster parents who can adopt and provide stability | Affirmed: juvenile court’s best-interest finding supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (termination review is mixed law/fact and appellate courts give deference to juvenile court)
- In re Z.D., 147 P.3d 401 (Utah 2006) (standard for overturning juvenile court findings requires clear weight of evidence or firm conviction of error)
- In re R.A.J., 991 P.2d 1118 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (court must find parental unfitness and that termination is in child’s best interests)
- In re D.B., 57 P.3d 1102 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (interpretation of § 508(2)(e): incarceration alone insufficient when child remains in normal home; incarceration relevant when child is in DCFS custody and deprived of normal home)