512 P.3d 497
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- Father (C.G.S.) is the biological father of C.S. and alleged father of K.S.; both children were previously adjudicated neglected in 2010 but jurisdiction was later terminated.
- Father moved out of state (Louisiana then Colorado); children ultimately remained in Utah with Mother, who lost custody in 2019 after testing positive for illegal drugs and DCFS removal.
- DCFS placed C.S. with foster parents (now prospective adoptive parents) and K.S. with Mother’s ex-husband/stepfather; both children were reported to be doing well and pursuing adoption.
- Early in the case Father appeared by phone and waived counsel; months later he sought appointed counsel and was represented from June 2020 onward.
- The juvenile court ordered an “expedited ICPC” to evaluate potential placement with Father in Louisiana; Louisiana authorities closed their assessment after repeated noncompliance and failures by Father to cooperate.
- After a three-day termination trial the court found statutory grounds (including abandonment) and that termination was in the children’s best interest; Father appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel at early hearings | Father waived counsel at initial telephonic hearings; court informed him how to request appointed counsel and later appointed counsel when he asked | Court violated Father’s right by allowing multiple unrepresented hearings and should have elicited on-the-record indigency inquiry | No error: Father knowingly waived early; court appointed counsel when he requested it; waiver presumed valid on missing transcripts |
| Order to request an ICPC before out-of-state placement | Ordering an expedited ICPC was a permissible way to satisfy Utah shelter statute’s home-inspection/background-check requirements for out-of-state placement | ICPC does not apply to placement with a natural noncustodial parent; court should have used a quicker courtesy check outside ICPC | No plain error: authority split nationally; Utah law required investigation; Father’s own noncompliance delayed the ICPC; K.S. not adjudicated legal child as additional support for ICPC use |
| Sufficiency of statutory grounds (abandonment/neglect/token efforts) | Clear and convincing evidence established abandonment (six+ months without communication), neglect, and token efforts, satisfying statutory grounds for termination | Evidence insufficient—Father had explanations (broken phone, work) and attempted contact; did not willfully abandon | Affirmed: prima facie abandonment shown; Father failed to rebut presumption; court’s credibility findings supported by record |
| Best-interest determination | Termination strictly necessary: children thriving in placements, desire adoption, sever ties with Father; disruption would harm children | Termination not necessary; less drastic alternatives or continued reunification efforts should have been pursued | Affirmed: holistic child-centered analysis favored termination; evidence supported that termination was in children’s best interest and strictly necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.E., 266 P.3d 739 (Utah 2011) (articulates two-part abandonment test and statutory prima facie rules)
- In re B.T.B., 472 P.3d 827 (Utah 2020) (best-interest standard and requirement that termination be strictly necessary)
- In re J.M., 463 P.3d 66 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (deference to juvenile court on statutory grounds; reversal only if against clear weight of evidence)
- In re E.R., 496 P.3d 58 (Utah 2021) (standard of review for best-interest determinations)
- State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (plain error review elements)
- State v. Frampton, 737 P.2d 183 (Utah 1987) (right to self-representation and court responsibility to ensure waivers are knowing)