L.G. v. State
307 P.3d 672
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Mother was convicted of felony drug offenses in Feb 2011 and incarcerated for a lengthy term; at removal the children were living with Father.
- DCFS removed the children from Father after evidence of his heroin use and found drugs/paraphernalia in the home; children placed with a paternal aunt (foster parents).
- DCFS set reunification with Father as the primary permanency goal because Father was the custodial parent at removal; Mother remained incarcerated throughout proceedings.
- Father was later incarcerated; the juvenile court changed the permanency goal to adoption and conducted a termination trial in Feb 2012.
- The juvenile court denied Mother reunification services, reasoning services could not practically be provided in prison and that services were directed to Father as the custodial parent, then terminated Mother’s parental rights.
- Mother appealed, arguing the court was required by Utah Code § 78A-6-312(25)(a) to order reasonable services to an incarcerated parent unless the court determines services would be detrimental to the children.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | State/Guardian’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court was required to order reunification services to an incarcerated parent absent a determination that services would be detrimental | Mother: statute mandates ordering reasonable services to incarcerated parents unless the court determines services would be detrimental; no such determination was made here | State/GA: court need not make a specific "detrimental" finding; it may instead make findings showing it considered the subsection (25)(b) factors | Reversed and remanded: statute requires an explicit judicial determination that services would be detrimental before denying services; court did not make that determination here |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.R., 967 P.2d 951 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (decision to order reunification services reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Diener v. Diener, 98 P.3d 1178 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (statutory interpretation reviewed for correctness)
- State v. Davis, 266 P.3d 765 (Utah 2011) (rules for statutory interpretation; give effect to plain language)
- State v. Jeffries, 217 P.3d 265 (Utah 2009) (presumption that statutory terms are used advisedly; plain-language inquiry)
- Brewster v. Brewster, 241 P.3d 357 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (discussing mandatory meaning of "shall")
- Archuleta v. Galetka, 267 P.3d 232 (Utah 2011) (appellate courts need not address every argument when disposition is governed by a dispositive issue)