520 P.3d 38
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- Child (born 2011) lived with parents until 2016; parents with histories of illegal drug use voluntarily placed the children in a court guardianship with maternal grandmother (Grandmother) and an uncle so parents could attempt recovery.
- Parents briefly regained custody, then relapsed in 2017–2018; the children returned to Grandmother and guardianship remained the status quo thereafter.
- Father was criminally charged in 2018, completed intensive drug treatment and was reportedly clean by 2020, but had no contact with Child from January 2018 until trial and made no financial contributions; Father sought to intervene and to enforce three hours/week parent-time from the 2016 guardianship order, but the court deferred and combined that motion with the termination trial.
- Grandparents filed a petition in August 2020 to terminate parental rights and to adopt; after a one-day bench trial the district court found statutory grounds (abandonment and past neglect) and terminated Father’s parental rights, concluding termination was in Child’s best interest and "strictly necessary" to permit adoption.
- Father appealed only the best-interest/strict-necessity portion, arguing the district court failed to consider feasible, less-permanent alternatives—specifically a permanent guardianship—and made inadequate present-tense findings about Father’s stability.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the termination order and remanded for renewed best-interest analysis, holding the trial court erred by not explaining on the record why permanency via adoption was strictly necessary rather than a permanent guardianship and by failing to adequately analyze Father’s current circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of alternative-guardianship argument | Grandparents: Father failed to preserve because he did not specifically request the court to consider permanent guardianship. | Father: Preservation satisfied because guardianship was the existing court-ordered status quo and petitioners bore the burden to prove termination was strictly necessary. | Preserved: appellate court exercised discretion and found the issue preserved given the guardianship status quo and petitioners’ burden. |
| Best interest / "strictly necessary" standard; consideration of less-permanent alternatives (permanent guardianship) | Grandparents: Adoption gives greater stability; adoption requires termination and trial court implicitly rejected guardianship by rejecting return to parents. | Father: Trial court failed to explore feasible alternatives and did not explain why a permanent guardianship could not equally protect/benefit Child; court relied on past conduct and made contradictory findings about Father’s current stability. | Reversed and remanded: court erred by not explaining on the record why termination/adoption was strictly necessary over a permanent guardianship and by failing to analyze present-tense facts about Father. Trial court must assess whether guardianship could equally protect and benefit the child. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.T.B., 472 P.3d 827 (2020 UT 60) (termination is permissible only when strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest; courts must examine feasible alternatives to termination)
- In re J.A.L., 506 P.3d 606 (2022 UT 12) (courts cannot rely on categorical assertions that guardianship is less permanent than adoption; must analyze whether guardianship can equally protect and benefit the children in the specific case)
- In re G.D., 491 P.3d 867 (2021 UT 19) (petitioners bear the burden to prove termination is warranted; applicable evidentiary standard discussed)
- In re E.R., 496 P.3d 58 (2021 UT 36) (standard of review for best-interest determinations: reversal only if court failed to consider all facts or decision is against clear weight of evidence)
- In re H.F., 455 P.3d 1098 (2019 UT App 204) (reversing termination where court failed to appropriately explore feasible alternatives to termination)
- In re J.M., 463 P.3d 66 (2020 UT App 52) (cautions that courts should evaluate parents’ present circumstances and explain reasons when rejecting reunification)