State Ex Rel. Jd
2011 UT App 184
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- J.D. (age 9) and E.D. (age 7) are the subject children; Mother (V.D.) and Father (A.D.) are their natural parents.
- In 2008, J.D. reported Father burned her; DCFS placed children with Aunt; court found Father abused J.D. and Children dependent as to Mother.
- DCFS created a Child and Family Plan requiring Mother to undergo mental health assessment and counseling; Father failed to participate in most programs.
- After Father left the home, Children were returned to Mother, but later events involving Mother’s partner J.S. and his home led to renewed concerns of risk and neglect.
- GAL moved for change of custody; juvenile court found neglect as to Mother and placed Children with Aunt again; Mother’s psychological issues and noncompliance with service plan persisted.
- In March 2010, DCFS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights; juvenile court found unfitness and that termination was in the Children’s best interests; both parental rights were terminated as to Mother and Father; this appeal concerns Mother’s termination order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is in the Children's best interests | Mother argues lack of clear evidence on best interests | State/GAL assert factors support best interests despite unfitness | Termination is in the Children’s best interests |
| Whether the best-interest analysis properly applied 78A-6-509 factors | DCFS alleged insufficient best-interest evidence | Court properly considered applicable factors and record supports termination | Court did not err in applying 78A-6-509 factors |
| Whether bifurcation of unfitness and best-interest analysis was necessary or required | Bifurcation unnecessary where unfitness proven | Legislature requires separate best-interest consideration | Court appropriately considered best interests separately and with deference to trial court findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.D., 2010 UT App 212U (Utah Court of Appeals, 2010) (termination of father affirmed; relevance to best interest analysis retained)
- In re R.A.J., 991 P.2d 1118 (Utah Court of Appeals, 1999) (deferential review; clear and convincing standard; no substitution of judgment)
- In re J.O., 189 P.3d 90 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2008) (upholding best-interest ruling despite bond with parent)
- In re S.L., 995 P.2d 17 (Utah Court of Appeals, 1999) (best interests examined with adoption-related considerations)
- In re S.T., 928 P.2d 393 (Utah Court of Appeals, 1996) (best-interest factors discussed in bifurcated analysis context)
- In re T.H., 2009 UT App 340U (Utah Court of Appeals, 2009) (illustrative best-interest evidence in similar context)
- Jensen v. Cunningham, 250 P.3d 465 (Utah Supreme Court, 2011) (parental rights constitutional framework and best-interest emphasis)