In re E.R., 457 P.3d 389

DCFS had repeated involvement with Mother and family since 2008, including supported findings of environmental neglect and other abuse allegations against the family.
E.R., age 11 at trial, has diagnoses including behavioral and emotional dysregulation, secondary PTSD, mood disorder, and Asperger’s, and exhibits severe behavioral problems and suicidal ideation.
In 2016 DCFS took E.R. into protective custody after hospitalization episodes and Father’s refusal to consent to inpatient care; legal custody/guardianship was awarded to DCFS and reunification services were later terminated.
The State petitioned to terminate parental rights; Father’s rights were terminated in March 2018; Mother’s trial occurred in Aug. and Nov. 2018.
The juvenile court found Mother made some progress but minimized her role, lacked long‑term parenting skills for E.R., and met statutory grounds for termination (unfit/incompetent parent, failure of parental adjustment, failure to remedy circumstances).
The court concluded termination was strictly necessary for E.R.’s best interest given his acute need for stability, aversion to any court involvement, and the foster parents’ ability to provide permanent care while supporting appropriate contact.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether termination was in child’s best interest / "strictly necessary"	Termination was not strictly necessary; court should preserve Mother’s rights and consider less drastic means	Termination was necessary due to E.R.’s need for permanence and to avoid further court involvement	Affirmed: termination was strictly necessary and in E.R.’s best interest
Whether court adequately explored alternatives (permanent guardianship with visitation)	Court failed to meaningfully assess feasibility of guardianship + continued visitation	Court did assess alternatives and reasonably rejected guardianship because it could leave open repeated court proceedings harmful to E.R.	Affirmed: court adequately considered alternatives and gave supported reasons for rejection
Standard of review for termination decisions	Appellate courts should apply a less deferential, more searching review because of constitutional rights	Appellate courts must follow precedent affording juvenile courts high deference on mixed questions of fact and law	Affirmed: applied existing deferential standard and declined to revisit it
Sufficiency of factual findings re Mother’s fitness and child’s needs	Mother argued findings insufficient or against evidence	State pointed to extensive evidence of Mother’s limited parenting capacity and child’s special needs	Affirmed: findings supported by evidence and not against clear weight of evidence

In re B.T.B., 436 P.3d 206 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (two‑part test and requirement to analyze "strictly necessary" for termination)
In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (appellate standard: give juvenile court high degree of deference in termination decisions)
State v. Levin, 144 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2006) (framework for reviewing mixed questions and assessing spectrum of deference)
In re S.Y.T., 267 P.3d 930 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (reaffirming deferential review in parental‑rights termination cases)
In re C.T., 438 P.3d 100 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (deference to juvenile court when it articulates supported reasons for rejecting alternatives)
In re D.R.A., 266 P.3d 844 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (need for permanency alone does not automatically support termination)
In re J.P., 921 P.2d 1012 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (permanent guardianship lacks finality and may result in future court involvement)