In re Z.G.
BENCH, Senior Judge:
¶1 H.V. (Guardian) appeals the juvenile court‘s ruling declining to order reunification services. We affirm.
¶2 Guardian was awarded permanent custody and guardianship of Z.G. (Child) in December 2014 after Child was adjudicated to have been neglected by her mother. Two months later, Child was temporarily removed from Guardian‘s custody due to police involvement but was soon returned. Just six weeks after that, Guardian was arrested on drug charges. On April 7, 2015, the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) filed a verified petition alleging that Guardian had been incarcerated and that Guardian‘s mother, who had been caring for Child since Guardian‘s arrest, could not provide long-term care for Child. The juvenile court adjudicated Child neglected by Guardian and granted custody and guardianship of Child to DCFS.
¶3 Apparently anticipating that Guardian might request reunification services, Child‘s appointed guardian ad litem moved the court to deny reunification services to Guardian. The juvenile court held a hearing on the motion and determined that under
ISSUE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶4 Guardian appeals the juvenile court‘s order denying reunification, arguing that the juvenile court erred in determining that she lacked standing to request reunification services under the Juvenile Court Act. The juvenile court‘s “interpretation of the Juvenile Court Act is a question of law, reviewed for correctness.” In re S.F., 2012 UT App 10, ¶ 24, 268 P.3d 831. The ultimate decision whether to provide or deny reunification services is a determination that we review for abuse of discretion. In re N.R., 967 P.2d 951, 956 (Utah Ct. App. 1998).
I. Permanent Guardians Have Standing to Seek Reunification Services.
¶5 The Juvenile Court Act is unclear as to whether reunification services are available to non-parents. However, Guardian and the State agree that “the best interpretation of the [Juvenile Court Act] is that they are.” Having reviewed the statute, we agree that an individual who has been granted permanent custody and guardianship over a minor child has standing to seek reunification services when that child is involuntarily removed from his or her custody.
¶6 First, we look to the statutory language to determine the legislature‘s intent. “We analyze the language of a statutory provision in light of other provisions within the same statute or act, and we attempt to harmonize the provisions in accordance with the legislative intent so as to give meaning to each provision.” Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. & Energy Recovery Special Serv. Dist. v. City of Bountiful, 2002 UT 60, ¶ 10, 52 P.3d 1174.
¶7 Section 78A-6-312, governing reunification services, indicates that if the court has ordered “continued removal at the dispositional hearing, and that the minor remain in the custody of the division,” then the court shall (1) “establish a primary permanency plan for the minor” and (2) determine whether “reunification services are appropriate for the minor and the minor‘s family.”
¶8 This conclusion is further supported by the fact that provisions in the Juvenile Court Act contemplate the possibility that a guardian may be responsible to provide financial support for a child when the child is in the custody of DCFS. See
¶9 Furthermore, our case law on the subject, while not determinative, appears to contemplate the possibility that a permanent guardian could obtain reunification services. For example, in In re K.G., 2009 UT App 116U (per curiam), we acknowledged the possibility that a guardian could receive reunification services but did not reach the question, because the aunt seeking reunification had never obtained legal recognition as the child‘s guardian. Id. para. 3 & n.2. Likewise, in In re T.S., 927 P.2d 1124 (Utah Ct. App. 1996), we left open the question of whether a permanent guardian might be entitled to rights akin to those of a parent, though we ultimately did not reach that issue because we determined that the guardian in that case had waived it. Id. at 1127.
¶10 Finally, denying permanent guardians the opportunity to seek reunification is inconsistent with permanent guardianship being a stable, long-term permanency goal. Along with reunification and adoption, guardianship is one of the main potential permanency goals when a child has been removed from his or her home due to abuse or neglect. See
¶11 For these reasons, we conclude that permanent guardians have standing to seek reunification services. We now turn to the question of whether the juvenile court exceeded its discretion by granting the guardian ad litem‘s motion to deny services to Guardian.
II. The Juvenile Court Did Not Exceed Its Discretion in Denying Reunification Services to Guardian.
¶12 Despite agreeing with Guardian that she had standing to seek reunification services, the State maintains that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in determining that reunification services were not in Child‘s best interests under the circumstances of this case. Guardian does not address this issue and instead requests that we remand the case for the juvenile court “to consider whether a grant of reunification services to
¶13 Even parents have no absolute right to receive reunification services. In re N.R., 967 P.2d at 955–56.
Whenever the court orders continued removal at the dispositional hearing, and that the minor remain in the custody of the division, the court shall first: (a) establish a primary permanency plan for the minor; and (b) determine whether, in view of the primary permanency plan, reunification services are appropriate for the minor and the minor‘s family . . . .
¶14 Here, the juvenile court found that “ordering reunification services to [Guardian] would not be in the best interests of” Child. The court observed that in a very short period of time, Child had been removed from her mother, removed from Guardian twice, and given up by Guardian‘s mother. The court expressed reluctance to leave Child in limbo while Guardian or Child‘s parents attempted to get their lives back on track: “And how long am I supposed to put [Child‘s] life on hold? She‘s almost three years old. Until she‘s five? Until she‘s six? Until she‘s 16?” The court was also concerned with Guardian‘s lack of honesty regarding her drug use. Given these concerns, the juvenile court did not exceed its discretion in determining that reunification services were not in Child‘s best interests.
¶15 We determine that a permanent guardian has standing to seek reunification services. However, under the circumstances of this case, the juvenile court did not exceed its discretion in determining that reunification services were not in Child‘s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court‘s grant of the guardian ad litem‘s motion to deny reunification services to Guardian.