J.J. v. State
302 P.3d 485
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DCFS removed Mother's and Father’s first three children in 2005 due to domestic violence; those children were later adopted by Adoptive Parents after parental rights were relinquished.
- Mother and Father had two additional children, M.J. (2009) and T.J. (2010), who are the subject of these proceedings; removal occurred in 2010 due to domestic violence in the home.
- The Children were initially returned to Mother in Sept. 2010 with a protective order, but Father violated the order and violence resumed, leading to DCFS custody on Nov. 2, 2010.
- A permanency plan aimed at reunification was established in Dec. 2010; subsequent years featured multiple hearings on Mother’s progress, housing, and treatment obligations, with ongoing homelessness and noncompliance noted.
- In Jan. 2012 the State petitioned to terminate parental rights; Dr. Featherstone conducted an Assessment in March 2012; at trial in Apr.–May 2012, Father relinquished his rights and Foster Parents remained the Children’s primary caregivers; the court terminated Mother’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother's due process rights were violated | Mother argues due process residual rights were violated. | State argues issue not preserved for appeal. | Claim unpreserved; we decline to reach merits. |
| Whether termination is in the Children's best interests | Mother contends evidence does not support best-interests finding. | State argues sufficient evidence, including failure to remedy problems and strong foster attachments. | Best-interests finding supported; court did not err. |
| Whether sibling placement considerations required reversal | Mother contends DCFS should place with older siblings per §78A-6-312(19). | State/Guardian oppose, placement with Adoptive Parents not feasible; bond with Foster Parents matters. | Court properly weighed bond with Foster Parents; sibling placement not required here. |
| Whether the court properly applied 78A-6-509/510 factors and defers to judge's discretion | Mother argues factors were not adequately considered. | State argues the court correctly applied statutory factors and exercised discretion. | Court’s application of 78A-6-509/510 supported; deference preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.K., 285 P.3d 772 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (best interests standard; mixed law and fact; defer to juvenile court)
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah Sup. Ct. 2007) (clear-error review; termination standards)
- In re J.D., 257 P.3d 1062 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (deference to court's findings; best interests context)
- In re R.A.J., 991 P.2d 1118 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (preservation and standard of review; discretion to judge)
- In re D.R.A., 266 P.3d 844 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (considering child’s best interests; statutory factors)