Castillo, In re
| Decision Date | 07 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 17207,17207 |
| Citation | 632 P.2d 855 |
| Parties | In re Parental Rights of Consuela CASTILLO. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Barrie A. Vernon, Tooele, for appellant.
David L. Wilkinson, Salt Lake City, Franklyn B. Matheson, Ronald L. Elton, Tooele, for respondent.
This is an appeal taken on behalf of Consuela Castillo from an order of the juvenile court permanently depriving her of parental rights in her two illegitimate children, B____ P____ (B. 5-31-71, thus now ten years of age), and T____ C____ (B. 4-13-74, and thus now seven years of age).
On appellant's behalf, it is contended that the juvenile court failed to give adequate recognition to the parent's rights in her children, of which it is asserted (1) that "she cannot be deprived unless there is a substantial departure from the norm under circumstances seriously detrimental to them"; and (2) that "this requires the Division of Family Services to show that it has exhausted possible alternate remedies."
The mother Consuelo, native of Guatemala, came to the United States 11 years ago; lived in Rhode Island, New York, back in Guatemala, then California and in Utah. She first came to the attention of the Division of Family Services, Tooele office, in March of 1971 as a public assistance applicant when she was pregnant with her first child. She has been on public assistance since that time, and most of the time in rest homes. In April, 1974, she gave birth to her second illegitimate child. The children have been in foster care provided by Family Services since 1974. Appellant has seen her children on visits once or twice a month.
The evidence is practically without dispute in support of the trial court's findings, summarized as follows:
Appellant is incompetent by reason of mental illness for which there is no reasonable expectation of cure. It can be controlled only if she receives medication three times a day, is maintained in a nonstressful environment and receives ongoing therapy. She is incapable of living on her own or meeting her own needs outside of the nursing home. If the above treatment is not maintained she engages in extremely bizarre behavior and becomes totally dependent upon others. Because of her condition she must continue to live in the nursing home; and it is impossible for her to care for her children now or in the foreseeable future.
Both children are emotionally disturbed due to past traumatic experiences with their mother and a lack of stability and security. Neither child has a positive bonding (love or affection) for their mother.
On the basis of those facts the court ordered termination of appellant's parental rights; that guardianship of the children be continued with the Division of Family Services for placement in a suitable adoptive home; and that the children receive whatever therapy is necessary to assist them to a healthy emotional adjustment in a stabilized home situation.
In addressing appellant's contentions, we note our agreement with certain propositions essayed on her behalf. The first is that we have no reservation in agreeing that a child is not a mere pawn of the state to be dealt with solely on the basis of what public officials, or even the courts, may believe to be in a child's best interest, without giving most serious consideration to the rights of the natural parent in his child. High among the ideals of individual liberty which we consider essential in our free society are those which protect the sanctity of one's home and family. 1
It is true that in controversies involving the well-being of children, this Court and others have frequently said that the best interest of children is of paramount importance. 2 We can see no useful purpose here in rediscussing our various cases dealing with the problem. It is deemed sufficient to say in summary that we are not aware that this Court has ever espoused the view, and it is not our view, that the termination of parental rights can be decreed without giving serious consideration to the prior and fundamental right of a parent to rear his child; and concomitantly, of the right of the child to be reared by his natural parent.
It is a matter of such common knowledge as to hardly require expression that it is in accordance with the natural instincts and customs of mankind that in most instances the interests of a child are best served by being in the custody of his natural parents. As was long ago aptly stated by the much-respected Chancellor Kent: "... the voice of nature has pointed out the natural parent as the most fit and proper person" to rear his own child. 3
The law therefore indulges a strong presumption to that effect; 4 and therefore, whatever may have heretofore been said about the burden of proof in such matters, due to the nature of that presumption, we think it should be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. 5 In this case, that standard is met because the facts recited herein are established without any substantial dispute.
In full awareness of what has just been said, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.R. v. Utah
...of individual liberty which... protect the sanctity of one's home and family" are "essential in a free society...." In re Castillo, Utah, 632 P.2d 855, 856 (1981). A parent has a "fundamental right, protected by the Constitution, to sustain his relationship with his child." State in re Walt......
-
J. P., In re
...right of a parent to rear his child; and concomitantly, of the right of the child to be reared by his natural parent. In re Castillo, Utah, 632 P.2d 855, 856 (1981). Section 78-3a-48(1)(a) was again amended effective May 12, 1981, after briefs were filed in this appeal. 3 Children's Rights ......
-
In Interest Of B.T.B.
...the home is unable or unwilling to correct the evils that exist." In re A.H. , 716 P.2d 284, 287 (Utah 1986) ; see also In re Castillo , 632 P.2d 855, 856 (Utah 1981) (stating that "it is not our view ... that the termination of parental rights can be decreed without giving serious consider......
-
B.T.B. v. V.T.B. (In re Interest of B.T.B.)
...be raised by her natural parents and that this presumption must be overcome before parental rights could be terminated. In re Castillo , 632 P.2d 855, 856-57 (Utah 1981). We held that determination must be made by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 857.¶53 Finally, our Rules of Juvenile ......
-
Views from the Bench
..."failure of parental adjustment" is State v. L.D. 894 P.2d 1278 (Utah App. 1995). [17]In re IP, 648 P.2d 1364 (Utah 1982); In re Castillo, 632 P.2d 855 (Utah 1981); and In re K.S. Jr., K.S. and B.S., 737 P.2d 170 (Utah 1987). In the latter case the Utah Supreme Court in reiterating that the......
-
Wifi in Utah: Legal and Social Issues
...liberty which we consider essential in our free society are those which protect the sanctity of one's home and family." In re Castillo, 632 P.2d 855, 856 (Utah 1981) (citations omitted). Minors can pornography through unsecured internet connections without the knowledge or approval of their......