In re L.M... (J.P. v. State)
2013 UT App 191
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Four children were removed after severe domestic violence incidents involving Mother’s paramour, M.A.; DCFS had prior involvement in 2009 for substance abuse/domestic violence.
- Because Mother had previously received reunification services, the State sought termination of parental rights without new reunification services.
- The State sought to admit out‑of‑court statements by two young children to their therapist and foster mother under Utah Code § 78A‑6‑115(6) (hearsay exception for statements to persons in a trust relationship). Mother objected, arguing the exception did not apply in termination proceedings and asserting confrontation/due process concerns.
- The juvenile court found the hearsay exception applicable to termination hearings, concluded the therapist and foster mother had established trust relationships with the children, and admitted only statements made after the court-determined trust-relationship dates.
- The juvenile court found Mother neglected the children, was unfit/unable or unwilling to remedy conditions, and that termination was in the children’s best interests; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah’s hearsay exception (§ 78A‑6‑115(6)) applies in termination proceedings | The exception applies only to adjudication hearings, not termination | The plain language of the Juvenile Court Act and related provisions shows the exception applies to termination as well | Court: The statute’s plain language indicates it applies to termination proceedings |
| Whether applying the hearsay exception in termination proceedings violates due process/confrontation rights | Admission of child statements through surrogate witnesses without the child’s availability violates Mother’s confrontation rights | Mother failed to preserve a confrontation challenge below; statutory scheme can apply without deciding constitutional issue | Court: Confrontation/due process claim not preserved for appeal; court declines to reach constitutional argument |
| Whether witnesses had sufficient "trust relationship" to admit child statements under the exception | The testimony was biased/unreliable and did not establish the required trust relationship | Testimony showed children confided in the therapist and foster mother, called foster mother “mom,” sought comfort, and exhibited bonding | Court: Findings that trust relationships existed were supported by the record; admission was proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination (neglect/unfitness and best interests) | Evidence weighed against termination; Mother cooperated and sought protection | Record showed ongoing violent relationship, prior DCFS involvement, children’s developmental and dental neglect, bonding with foster family and appropriate care there | Court: Evidence was sufficient; no clear error in findings of neglect, unfitness, or that termination served children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.A., 222 P.3d 1172 (Utah 2009) (statutory interpretation standard)
- Chen v. Stewart, 100 P.3d 1177 (Utah 2004) (constitutional issues reviewed for correctness)
- In re L.N., 91 P.3d 836 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (trust‑relationship analysis for hearsay exception)
- In re G.B., 53 P.3d 963 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (standard of review for termination fact findings)
- Reed v. Reed, 806 P.2d 1182 (Utah 1991) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)