L.G. v. State, 2015 UT 41

Mother (L.G.) incarcerated for drug offenses; children placed with Father, who was later arrested and children placed in foster care.
DCFS filed neglect petition; juvenile court initially set primary permanency goal of reunification with Father and approved services for him but did not order services for Mother.
Father failed case plan, was incarcerated; court later changed primary permanency goal to adoption and terminated Father’s services; Mother did not object to goal change at that time.
At termination hearing, Mother argued her rights could not be terminated because DCFS had not provided reasonable reunification services to her; juvenile court found both parents unfit and terminated parental rights.
Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding the juvenile court must make an on-the-record detriment determination before withholding services from an incarcerated parent; Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mother preserved claim that DCFS failed to provide reasonable reunification services	Mother: preserved by raising the issue at termination hearing; allowed under statute requiring finding of reasonable efforts at termination	GAL/State: claim was untimely because parent should request services at dispositional hearing when primary permanency goal set	Preserved: timely to raise at termination hearing; juvenile court ruled on it, so preserved for appeal
Whether juvenile court must order/review reunification services for an incarcerated parent regardless of primary permanency goal	Mother: § 78A-6-312(24)(a) requires ordering reasonable services for incarcerated parents unless court finds services would be detrimental, so court erred by not making express detriment finding	GAL/State: reunification services are considered only when consistent with the court's primary permanency goal; here goal did not contemplate reunification with Mother	Held: Juvenile court must order reasonable services to incarcerated parents only when reunification is consistent with the primary permanency goal; because the court’s goal did not contemplate reunification with Mother (later adoption), it was not required to order or make the subsection (24) detriment analysis

Harold Selman, Inc. v. Box Elder Cnty., 251 P.3d 804 (Utah 2011) (standard of review for court of appeals on certiorari)
Anderson v. United Parcel Serv., 96 P.3d 903 (Utah 2004) (review of statutory construction for correctness)
A.O. v. State (State ex rel. K.F.), 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (dispositional/permanency hearings are not always final or appealable; parents may raise issues later)
C.M.F. v. State (State ex rel. A.F.), 167 P.3d 1070 (Utah 2007) (dispositional orders can set direction rather than final status)
Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P’ship, 267 P.3d 863 (Utah 2011) (statutory interpretation focuses on plain language and legislative intent)
State v. Watkins, 309 P.3d 209 (Utah 2013) (primary goal of statutory interpretation is to effectuate legislative intent)
State v. Barrett, 127 P.3d 682 (Utah 2005) (read statute as whole and harmonize provisions)