R.O. v. M.M.
2014 UT App 171
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Stepmother (petitioning to adopt) is married to Child's father; Mother is biological mother with a history of substance abuse and was incarcerated in Nov 2010.
- Stepmother filed to adopt and to terminate Mother's parental rights in May 2011; Mother was served May 18, 2011.
- Mother mailed a pro se motion to extend time (mailed June 15, filed June 20); Stepmother moved to strike for failing to intervene within the 30‑day statutory period. The district court denied the motion to strike and gave Mother ten days to answer; Mother then intervened and answered.
- After evidentiary hearings, the district court found clear-and-convincing grounds for termination (abandonment/failure to communicate for >6 months) for the period before Mother’s incarceration, but concluded Stepmother did not prove termination was in Child’s best interest and denied the petition.
- Stepmother appealed both the denial of her motion to strike and the denial of termination, arguing the court’s best‑interest findings were legally inadequate. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to strike for lack of an adequate record, reversed the denial of termination, and remanded for detailed best‑interest findings.
Issues
| Issue | Stepmother's Argument | Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother waived rights by failing to timely file a motion to intervene under Utah Adoption Act § 78B‑6‑110(6) | Mother’s June 20 filing (or June 15 mailing) was untimely; failure to "fully and strictly comply" forfeits parental rights | District court allowed extension/answer; factual/procedural equities and court order cured any defect | Affirmed denial of motion to strike — appellate court declined to reach statutory merits because Stepmother failed to provide the transcript/record explaining the ruling |
| Whether the district court made adequate findings that terminating Mother's parental rights was in Child's best interest after finding statutory grounds | Termination is warranted because grounds (abandonment) were established and adoption serves Child’s permanency | Mother could become fit in future; court lacked sufficient evidence on Child’s wishes and current condition; so termination may not be in Child’s best interest | Reversed: district court’s best‑interest findings were conclusory and insufficient; remand required for detailed subsidiary findings explaining why termination is or is not in Child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of T.H., 171 P.3d 480 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (two‑step termination analysis: grounds then best interest)
- In re A.C.M., 221 P.3d 185 (Utah 2009) (both grounds and best‑interest findings required for termination)
- In re J.D., 257 P.3d 1062 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (best interest is paramount; typically follows proven unfitness but not always)
- In re D.R.A., 266 P.3d 844 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (statutory factors that must be considered in best‑interest analysis)
- Woodward v. Fazzio, 823 P.2d 474 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (inadequate findings generally require remand)
- In re S.T., 928 P.2d 393 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (findings must show subsidiary facts and evidentiary basis for best‑interest conclusion)