Case Information
*1 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
‐‐‐‐ ooOoo ‐‐‐‐
State Utah, interest A.M., ) PER CURIAM DECISION person under eighteen years age. ) ) Case No.
)
D.H., )
) F I L E D Appellant, ) (March 2012) )
v. ) App 79 )
State Utah, )
)
Appellee. )
‐‐‐‐‐
Third District Juvenile, West Jordan Department, Honorable Julie V. Lund
Attorneys: Judith L.C. Ledkins, Salt Lake City, Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff John Peterson, Salt Lake City, Appellee Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian ad Litem ‐‐‐‐‐
Before Judges McHugh, Christiansen.
¶1 D.H. (Mother) appeals guardianship relatives. seek terminate rights. challenges sufficiency evidence grant permanent guardianship. have admitted allegations petition pursuant rule 34(e) Rules Juvenile Procedure. Utah R. Juv. P. 34(e) *2 (“Allegations not specifically denied by a respondent shall be true.”). Accordingly, Mother was adjudicated as having neglected A.M. The initial permanency goal for A.M. was reunification with Mother, and the Division Child and Family Services (DCFS) was ordered to provide reunification services. At the conclusion the reunification period, the juvenile court held an evidentiary permanency hearing determine whether A.M. could be safely returned to Mother’s custody. juvenile court found that returning A.M. would create a substantial risk detriment to her physical or emotional ‐ being. the juvenile court terminated reunification services and changed A.M.’s primary permanency goal to custody and guardianship with a non ‐ relative. After a further review, the juvenile court granted permanent custody and guardianship to the parents and terminated juvenile court jurisdiction.
¶3 An custody and does not permanently sever parent ‐ child relationship be revisited in future based upon changed circumstances. See In re J.P. , 921 P.2d 1012, 1019 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). Therefore, did not bear burden to prove unfitness any other ground that would be necessary to a termination parental rights. juvenile only required to determine, by a preponderance whether A.M. could safely return to custody. Code Ann. § 78A ‐ 6 ‐ 314(2)(b) (Supp. 2011). At permanency hearing, Mother not claim that she should then regain custody A.M. but sought an extension time reunification services, which denied. Mother had previously been adjudicated as neglecting she was not entitled a presumption a contest with a ‐ relative. See M.W. 80. claims that ruling is not supported by sufficient evidence. Mother had a history with DCFS spanning over twenty years. As she herself acknowledged, Mother not a position regain at time permanency hearing because she residing a homeless shelter could provide a suitable home Although had completed psychological and psychiatric assessments, she not followed recommendation continue individual therapy. She eight weeks therapy eight week parenting course, as required by a case from another court. She not completed domestic violence treatment claimed that because she victim, perpetrator, should be required satisfy this requirement. Although Mother *3 regularly visited progressed beyond supervised visits. doing her foster home, therapy, getting good grades at school.
¶5 We will overturn court’s decision “only if it either failed consider all facts considered all facts its decision nonetheless against clear weight evidence.” B.R. 435. “When foundation decision exists appellate engage reweighing evidence.” Id. decision adequately supported, we do disturb it. we affirm decision parents. ____________________________________
Carolyn B. McHugh,
Presiding Judge
____________________________________
James Z. Judge
Michele Christiansen, Judge