2015 UT 92
Utah2015Background
- K.C., born 2005, was removed from her mother N.D.’s custody in Oct 2012 after the father admitted to sexually abusing the child; the child was adjudicated dependent.
- In March 2013 the juvenile court ordered reunification services and a DCFS service plan; the plan noted N.D.’s serious mental and physical disabilities but N.D. did not then invoke the ADA or request special modifications.
- DCFS provided various accommodations (mental-health recommendations, extra peer parenting sessions, extra time for tasks), but later opposed continued services as N.D. made insufficient progress; reunification services were terminated in Dec 2013 and the State sought termination of parental rights.
- N.D. raised the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as an affirmative defense at the termination stage, arguing DCFS failed to provide reasonable disability‑related reunification services and failed to refer her to disability agencies.
- The juvenile court ruled alternatively that (1) the ADA did not apply to termination proceedings, or (2) even if it did, no additional reasonable modifications were available; the Utah Supreme Court concluded the ADA applies to reunification services but affirmed termination because no reasonable additional modifications were shown.
Issues
| Issue | N.D.'s Argument | State/Guardian Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II ADA applies to reunification services and can be invoked in termination proceedings | ADA applies to DCFS reunification services; parent may request ADA accommodations during termination proceedings | ADA does not apply to termination proceedings or may only be raised in a separate action; focus is the child’s welfare | ADA applies to reunification services/programs/activities and may be invoked in the termination context |
| Whether N.D. was time‑barred from invoking the ADA at termination hearing | ADA claims may be raised at termination hearing; not automatically time‑barred | ADA invocation at eleventh hour is untimely and should be barred | Not time‑barred under Utah law; parent may raise ADA at termination hearing though lateness is relevant to merits |
| Whether N.D. was a "qualified individual" entitled to reasonable modifications to the reunification plan | With reasonable modifications N.D. could meet eligibility for services; DCFS failed to provide sufficient ADA‑compliant modifications | N.D. was not a qualified individual or had already received adequate accommodations; further modification would be unreasonable and harmful to child | Determination is fact‑specific; court may consider child’s best interests; here record supports juvenile court’s finding that no reasonable additional modifications were available |
| Whether a failure to train DCFS staff or refer to other agencies is a standalone ADA claim | DCFS’s failure to train and refer violated ADA and undermined reunification efforts | Training/referral is not a standalone basis to avoid termination; claimant must show entitlement to a reasonable modification | Rejected as a standalone claim; relief depends on whether specific reasonable modifications were required (here none shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Manzanares v. Byington (In re Adoption of Baby B.), 308 P.3d 382 (Utah 2012) (articulates standard of review for juvenile court mixed determinations)
- Spencer v. Utah State Bar, 293 P.3d 360 (Utah 2012) (treats program covered by ADA analysis regarding qualification and reasonable modifications)
- Pa. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (interprets ADA coverage broadly to encompass various public programs and activities)
- In re Adoption of Gregory, 747 N.E.2d 120 (Mass. 2001) (contrary view that ADA not raised as defense in termination proceedings)
- Family Indep. Agency v. Richards (In re Terry), 610 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (recognizes ADA requires reasonable accommodations in child‑welfare services)