500 P.3d 94
Utah Ct. App.2021Background
- Mother filed a private petition to terminate Father’s parental rights for two children, alleging Father had a history of domestic violence and had twice been incarcerated for such offenses.
- At a 2017 trial the juvenile court found statutory grounds (abandonment) but denied termination on best-interest grounds, reasoning Father had not been violent toward the children and compartmentalizing his domestic-violence history.
- This court vacated and remanded in 2019, holding the juvenile court’s best-interest analysis was materially flawed for separating Father’s domestic-violence history from the best-interest inquiry and instructing the court to reconsider best interest.
- On remand the juvenile court refused Mother’s motion to amend to include post-2017 events (including alleged additional domestic violence, parole revocation, Mother’s remarriage and prospective adoption), limited its review to the 2017 record, and again denied termination.
- Mother and the guardian ad litem moved for a new trial to introduce post-2017 evidence; the juvenile court denied those motions and directed Mother to file a new petition if she wanted to litigate new facts.
- The appellate court held that when remanding for reconsideration of best interest, courts should generally evaluate best interest in present tense (as of the post-remand proceeding) and must consider proffered new evidence in some manner; it vacated the dismissal and remanded for a new present-tense best-interest analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred by conducting the post-remand best-interest inquiry as of 2017 and refusing to consider facts arising after 2017 | The court should assess best interest as of the post-remand proceeding (present tense) and must allow amendment or otherwise consider post-2017 evidence | The court complied with the remand by "reconsidering" the 2017 record; Mother could file a new petition for material new events | Reviewed for correctness; court erred. Post-remand best-interest analyses are generally to be conducted in present tense (as of the post-remand proceeding) and the court must consider proffered new evidence in some manner; vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.C.W., 440 P.3d 749 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (prior appellate opinion vacating best-interest ruling and remanding for reconsideration)
- In re B.T.B., 472 P.3d 827 (Utah 2020) (framework: best-interest inquiry examines child’s present physical, mental, and emotional needs)
- In re J.J.T., 877 P.2d 161 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (courts must not impose artificial constraints for judicial economy when deciding a child’s best interest)
- W.N. v. S.M., 424 P.3d 483 (Haw. 2018) (custody analysis must consider fitness in present tense at time of award)
- In re G.D., 491 P.3d 867 (Utah 2021) (court may evaluate proffered new evidence and determine whether it would have altered the prior decision)
- Scott v. Scott, 423 P.3d 1275 (Utah 2017) (statutory interpretation: use of present-tense "is" indicates present-tense analysis)
- In re H.F., 455 P.3d 1098 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (on remand courts should account for changed circumstances since trial)
- Ross v. Ross, 447 P.3d 104 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (on remand courts should consider present circumstances rather than relitigate only the prior record)