L.G. v. State
353 P.3d 131
Utah2015Background
- Mother (L.G.) incarcerated for drug offenses; Father (J.B.) was custodial and later arrested; DCFS removed the children and placed them with foster parents.
- Juvenile court adjudicated neglect, set primary permanency goal of reunification with Father and ordered reunification services for Father only; Mother did not request services at that time.
- Father later failed to comply and was incarcerated; the court changed the primary permanency goal to adoption and terminated Father’s services.
- At the termination hearing, Mother argued her parental rights could not be terminated because DCFS had not provided her reasonable reunification services; the juvenile court rejected this and terminated her rights.
- Court of appeals reversed, holding the juvenile court must determine on the record whether reunification services for an incarcerated parent would be detrimental before withholding them. The Guardian ad Litem appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother preserved claim that DCFS failed to provide reunification services | Mother: She preserved the claim by arguing at termination that services were required before termination | GAL/DCFS: She should have requested services at dispositional/permanency hearing; too late at termination | Preserved — issue sufficiently raised at termination; statute allows raising failure-to-provide-services at termination |
| Whether juvenile court must order reunification services to an incarcerated parent absent an on-the-record detriment finding | Mother: Utah Code §78A-6-312(24)(a) requires services unless court finds detriment, regardless of permanency goal | GAL/DCFS: Services are required only when reunification is consistent with the court’s primary permanency goal | Held for GAL: Court must order/consider services for an incarcerated parent only when reunification is consistent with the primary permanency goal; here primary goal was adoption, so no duty to provide services to Mother |
| Whether an explicit on-the-record detriment finding was required here | Mother: Court erred by not making specific detriment finding before withholding services | GAL/DCFS: No need because reunification was not the permanency goal, so subsection did not apply | Not reached on merits — because reunification was not implicated, the court did not need to decide whether an explicit on-the-record detriment finding is required |
| Effect of failing to request inclusion in permanency goal | Mother: Failure to request services at dispositional hearing does not preclude relief | GAL/DCFS: Failure to seek a permanency goal involving reunification limits entitlement to services | Court: Preservation rule allowed the claim, but failure to seek a reunification permanency goal means reunification services were not required and affects the appeal outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. Patterson, 266 P.3d 828 (preservation principles for appeal)
- J.M.W. v. T.I.Z. (In re Adoption of Baby E.Z.), 266 P.3d 702 (what constitutes presentation to trial court for preservation)
- A.O. v. State (State ex rel. K.F.), 201 P.3d 985 (dispositional hearing is not final/appealable; preservation at termination)
- C.M.F. v. State (State ex rel. A.F.), 167 P.3d 1070 (dispositional/permanency hearings often set direction rather than final status)
- State v. Watkins, 309 P.3d 209 (statutory interpretation principles)