S.K. v. State, 317 P.3d 964

Mother appealed termination of her parental rights to three children who had been in out-of-home placement since the juvenile court's involvement in April 2008.
DCFS and the juvenile court found repeated domestic violence between Mother and Father and later substance-abuse issues; at least one child received therapy with concerns about continued exposure to parental fighting.
Mother repeatedly failed to complete ordered services (domestic-violence counseling, drug/alcohol treatment), skipped drug tests, and violated a court no-contact order with Father.
The children were placed with paternal grandparents in a stable, loving, structured home; grandparents were willing to adopt and to consider contact with parents only if in the children’s best interests.
The juvenile court terminated parental rights as being in the children’s best interests, finding that returning the children to Mother posed substantial risk given her continued conduct.
Mother moved for substitute counsel on the day of trial, claiming a total breakdown in communication; the juvenile court conducted the required inquiry and denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Juvenile Court/DCFS)	Held
Whether termination was supported by sufficient evidence of best interests	Court ignored unrefuted evidence of loving, beneficial parent-child bond and visitation; bond outweighs termination	Court considered bond but found persistent domestic violence, substance abuse, failure to complete services, and risk to children outweighed the relationship	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; findings addressed statutory factors and justified termination
Whether denial of day-of-trial motion for substitute counsel was erroneous	Breakdown in communication with appointed counsel deprived Mother of effective assistance; substitute counsel warranted	Mother had avoided contact, failed to cooperate; counsel had met with Mother and was prepared; no good cause shown for substitution	Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion because Mother failed to show good cause or a complete breakdown

In re Adoption of T.H., 171 P.3d 480 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review and discretion for best-interests determinations)
In re D.R.A., 266 P.3d 844 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (weighing a parent–child bond against grounds for termination)
In re S.T., 928 P.2d 393 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (overlap between unfitness findings and best-interests analysis)
In re C.C., 48 P.3d 244 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (right to effective counsel and standards for substitute counsel requests)
State v. Lovell, 984 P.2d 382 (Utah 1999) (good-cause standard for substitution of counsel)
State v. Scales, 946 P.2d 377 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (who is at fault in attorney–client breakdown affects substitution analysis)
State v. Pando, 122 P.3d 672 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (mere disagreement over strategy does not warrant substitution)
Gardner v. Holden, 888 P.2d 608 (Utah 1994) (acrimony alone insufficient to show ineffective assistance absent performance impact)
State v. Wulffenstein, 733 P.2d 120 (Utah 1986) (trial counsel’s willingness and ability to proceed is relevant to substitution decisions)