2017 UT App 108
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- DCFS removed Mother’s four children after referrals for non‑supervision, environmental neglect, and educational neglect; Mother stipulated to removal and children were adjudicated neglected.
- Court-ordered reunification plan required housing, employment, psychological and medication evaluations, individual and family therapy, parenting classes, and Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT).
- Mother diagnosed with bipolar disorder and dependent personality traits; she attended some therapy and PCIT but made minimal progress, missed appointments, and struggled to apply learned parenting skills.
- Children displayed behavioral and developmental issues (severe ADHD, aggression, delayed language) that the juvenile court found resulted from Mother’s neglect; foster placements provided structure and services.
- After a trial home placement and continued concerns (including removal following a safety inspection of Mother’s apartment), reunification services were terminated and the goal changed to adoption; Mother ceased consistent engagement thereafter.
- Juvenile court found statutory grounds for termination (failure of parental adjustment; out-of-home placement grounds under Utah Code § 78A-6-507) and that termination was in the children’s best interests; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCFS/State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supported termination under Utah Code § 78A-6-507 (parental unfitness/ failure of parental adjustment) | Mother: she was struggling as a single parent and not unfit; DCFS didn’t provide adequate assistance (language services, reminders, call help) | DCFS: Mother remained unable/unwilling to remedy conditions, failed to attain parenting skills despite reasonable services over 15+ months | Affirmed — evidence supported grounds including failure of parental adjustment |
| Whether DCFS made reasonable efforts to reunify | Mother: DCFS assistance was inadequate (no Spanish services, no appointment reminders, no call assistance) | DCFS: Provided extensive services (therapy, medication assistance, PCIT, peer parenting, trial home placement) and adapted scheduling/location to fit Mother’s needs | Affirmed — court found DCFS made reasonable efforts |
| Whether returning children to Mother would be safe in near future | Mother: argued improvement and ongoing efforts justified preservation of rights | DCFS: Children would be unsafe; Mother could not maintain a physically appropriate home or supervise full‑time | Affirmed — court found substantial likelihood Mother could not provide proper care in near future |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | Mother: contended termination unnecessary given her efforts and DCFS shortfalls | DCFS: Termination would allow adoption into stable homes that provide structure and safety | Affirmed — best interest finding supported by evidence; termination necessary to facilitate adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (appellate deference and burden when reviewing termination of parental rights)
- In re Z.D., 147 P.3d 401 (Utah 2006) (standard for overturning juvenile court termination decision)
- In re R.A.J., 991 P.2d 1118 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (two‑part requirement: parental unfitness threshold and best‑interest determination for termination)