In re J.L..., 506 P.3d 606

Background

DCFS engaged with the family from at least July 2018; children removed from mother in December 2018 and placed in foster care. Parents had histories of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental-health treatment orders.
Division initially pursued reunification; after services failed the Division changed the permanency goal to adoption and children were placed with paternal uncle in Arkansas who agreed to adopt.
Juvenile court found both parents "unfit" and "neglected" the children under Utah Code § 78A-6-508(2) and terminated both parents' rights based on statutory grounds and a best-interest finding that termination was "strictly necessary."
Six weeks after the termination order, the kinship/adoptive placement failed and the children returned to state custody; parents filed post-judgment Rule 60(b) motions which the juvenile court denied.
Mother appealed challenging findings that she appeared "under the influence" (arguing judge lacked expertise and was denied due process); father appealed challenging the best-interest determination and asked the Court to replace deferential appellate review with de novo review.
Supreme Court: mother failed to preserve error and did not show plain error; rejected request to abandon deferential review; found two legal errors in the juvenile court's best-interest analysis (failure to apply the statute's "reasonable length of time" inquiry and improper categorical rejection of permanent guardianship), vacated termination order as to both parents' best-interest determinations, and remanded for rehearing while leaving unfitness findings intact.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge could rely on courtroom observations that mother "appeared under the influence" without expert testimony or separate notice/due process	Mother: judge unaided by expert cannot make such findings; she lacked notice and opportunity to respond	State: observations are proper factual basis; sobriety already an issue and testing order was procedural follow-up	Mother failed to preserve objection; no plain error shown; observation-based testing not reversible error
Whether appellate courts should review best-interest termination determinations de novo (overruling prior deferential standard)	Father: requests de novo review for correctness	State: defend existing deferential standard; mixed law/fact inquiry warrants deference except for legal error or clear weight of evidence	Court declines to abandon deferential review; reaffirmed mixed law/fact standard with deference, but no deference where threshold legal error exists
Whether termination was "strictly necessary" given parental progress — must court assess whether parent had reasonable length of time to adjust under § 78A-6-509(1)(b)?	Father: juvenile court erred by judging return "today/at this time" without assessing whether parent had reasonable time to adjust	State: court found insufficient parental adjustment and safety risk	Court held juvenile court committed legal error by not engaging the statute's "reasonable length of time" inquiry; reversed on this ground
Whether permanent guardianship (rather than termination/adoption) was properly evaluated as a feasible alternative	Father: court failed to analyze whether guardianship could "equally protect and benefit" the children; treated guardianship categorically as inferior	State: adoption provides greater permanency; guardianship has risks	Court held juvenile court erred by categorically rejecting guardianship as inherently insufficient without case-specific analysis; remanded for proper consideration

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. B.R. v. Juvenile Court, 171 P.3d 435 (establishing deferential appellate review for juvenile best-interest determinations)
In re G.D., 491 P.3d 867 (recent reaffirmation that best-interest inquiry is mixed law and fact; deference applies)
State ex rel. E.R., 496 P.3d 58 (clarifies mixed law/fact nature of best-interest and limits deference for threshold legal questions)
In re B.T.B., 472 P.3d 827 (requires courts to consider feasible alternatives such as permanent guardianship in strictly-necessary analysis)
Rocky Ford Irrigation Co. v. Kents Lake Reservoir Co., 469 P.3d 1003 (appellate courts may set aside lower-court findings infected by legal error)
In re T.E., 266 P.3d 739 (upholding reliance on observable in-court behavior for factual findings)
State v. Low, 192 P.3d 867 (articulates plain-error standard)
Utah Stream Access Coalition v. Orange St. Dev., 416 P.3d 553 (discusses preservation/forfeiture and appellate review limits)
State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (party forfeits claims not raised on appeal)