533 P.3d 1165
Utah Ct. App.2023Background:
- Jan 2022: DCFS received a report that Mother (R.S.) was using drugs and neglecting infant Sister; Sister was placed with the maternal Grandmother, who already cared for Brother.
- Juvenile court set a reunification plan; Mother completed an initial substance-abuse and mental-health assessment but did not engage in treatment and took 5 of 96 drug tests (all positive).
- Biweekly supervised visits required the children to travel roughly 6.5 hours round-trip; Mother sometimes missed or cancelled visits without notifying Grandmother, causing unnecessary travel and emotional upset for Brother.
- Mother made inappropriate comments about Grandmother to Brother that led to post-visit behavioral problems; she stopped after caseworker intervention, but the court doubted permanence and worried about future relapse.
- Mother and Grandmother no longer communicate or cooperate; Grandmother provides a stable, bonded home meeting the children’s needs and the children are thriving in her care.
- Juvenile court found statutory grounds for termination (unchallenged on appeal), concluded termination was "strictly necessary" from the children’s point of view instead of awarding guardianship to Grandmother, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was "strictly necessary" versus awarding permanent guardianship to Grandmother | Termination not strictly necessary because permanent guardianship could equally protect the children and preserve the parent-child relationship | Guardianship would not resolve the parent–guardian conflict or the instability caused by Mother’s conduct; termination better promotes the children’s welfare | Affirmed: termination was strictly necessary from the children’s point of view |
| Whether the court misweighed evidence (missed visits; Mother stopping inappropriate comments) | Court should have credited Mother’s cessation of inappropriate comments and weighed Brother’s distress after missed visits against termination | Juvenile court’s factual findings and credibility determinations are supported by the record and entitled to deference | Affirmed: appellate court will not disturb the juvenile court’s weighing of evidence |
| Whether the court improperly focused on adults’ inability to "co‑parent" rather than the children’s perspective | "Co-parenting" language mischaracterizes guardianship and reflects an adult-centered analysis | The court evaluated how the parent–guardian conflict and communication failures harmed the children and applied the child-centered "strictly necessary" standard | Affirmed: court considered the children’s perspective and properly concluded termination was needed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.W., 521 P.3d 896 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (articulates standard of review and deference to juvenile court best‑interest findings)
- In re B.T.B., 472 P.3d 827 (Utah 2020) (requires that termination be "strictly necessary" and that analysis be done from the child’s point of view)
- In re J.P., 502 P.3d 1247 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (long‑term guardianship is appropriate only when parent and guardian have a workable, healthy relationship)