Decision
T1 C.D. (Father) appeals the termination of his parental rights in M.D. We affirm.
12 Father argues that the juvenile court erred in finding that the termination of his parental rights was in M.D.'s best interest. A juvenile court's findings of fact will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous. In re E.R.,
13 Father asserts that termination was not in M.D.'s best interest because there was not an adoptive placement available for him at the time of the termination trial. Additionally, Father contends that he has stabilized his situation and that his fiancée (Fiancée) is available to raise M.D. The juvenile court considered these facts, however, and found that M.D.'s best interest remained becoming free for adoption. The lack of an adoptive placement at the time of a termination of parental rights trial does not preclude a determination that termination is in a child's best interest. In re J.D.,
14 Father does not challenge the juvenile court's finding that he is an unfit parent. In this instance, he is highly likely to remain unfit because of his cognitive limitations and lack of understanding of M.D.'s needs. As a result, the possibility of placing M.D. back with Father depends on the stability of his relationship with Fiancée, which has not been established.
T 6 Reunification services were provided to Father at the beginning of these proceedings. The service plan included components of parenting classes, mental health evaluation, and medication management. Although Father completed a parenting class, he did not internalize the lessons. He resisted managing his medications and displayed drug-seeking behavior until late in the proceedings. Also, he did not obtain a mental health assessment until it was too late to address any issue raised before termination proceedings. 'The juvenile court noted that Father was inattentive to services and "dabbled" in but did not complete services offered. This was in spite of almost weekly meetings with DCFS caseworkers to discuss requirements and provide direction. Services for Father were terminated after he made threats against DCFS workers. Given Father's belligerence to caseworkers and his general lack of effort or interest in the services offered, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that DCFS had made reasonable efforts to provide reunification services to Father.
T7 Father argues that DCFS did not make reasonable efforts given his cognitive limitations. However, Father's own argument indicates that he requires supervision to be an appropriate parent. On his own, he lacks the ability to properly care for M.D., particularly with M.D.'s special needs. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in considering Father's cognitive limitations as evidence of unfitness rather than as a rationale for additional services. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-508(2)(a) (LexisNexis 2012).
T8 Affirmed.
Notes
. Although Father states that he intends to marry Fiancée, he had not initiated divorce proceedings against his wife at the time of trial.
. Father also asserts that the juvenile court erred in ending his visits with M.D. prior to the termination trial. With the affirmance of the termination of Father's parental rights, this issue is moot.