State ex rel. A.K. v. State
| Decision Date | 30 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20220671-CA |
| Citation | 523 P.3d 1156 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, IN the INTEREST OF A.K., a person under eighteen years of age. C.K., Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Freyja Johnson, Salt Lake City, and Emily Adams, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian ad Litem
Before Judges Gregory K. Orme, Ryan M. Harris, and Ryan D. Tenney.
Per Curiam Decision
¶1 C.K. (Father) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights in A.K. (Child). We affirm.
¶2 "To terminate parental rights, a juvenile court must make two separate findings." In re C.T. , 2018 UT App 233, ¶ 12, 438 P.3d 100 (quotation simplified). "First, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that there is at least one statutory ground for termination." Id. (quotation simplified). "Second, a court must find that termination of the parent's rights is in the best interests of the child." Id. (quotation simplified). A court may terminate a parent's rights only if it finds that termination is strictly necessary for the best interest of a child. Id. "We review deferentially a lower court's best-interest determination, and will overturn it ‘only if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.’ " In re J.J.W. , 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 18, 520 P.3d 38 (quoting In re E.R ., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 31, 496 P.3d 58 ). "Although we defer to juvenile courts‘ factual determinations, in reviewing their conclusions we do so with an exacting focus on the proper evidentiary standard." In re G.D. , 2021 UT 19, ¶ 73, 491 P.3d 867.
¶3 Father contends that the juvenile court erred in determining that termination of his parental rights was in Child's best interest and was strictly necessary.1 "[O]nce a statutory ground for termination is found, identifying the option for the child that promotes her welfare and best interest takes precedence over the other considerations." In re B.T.B. , 2020 UT 60, ¶ 61, 472 P.3d 827. The best interest analysis must be "undertaken from the child's point of view." Id. ¶ 64. And "when the court considers a child's welfare and best interest, the court's focus should be firmly fixed on finding the outcome that best secures the child's well-being." Id. "The strictly necessary language is designed to ensure that the court pause long enough to thoughtfully consider the range of available options that could promote the child's welfare and best interest." Id. ¶ 69. "[I]f a court has complied with its statutory obligations, its resultant best interest determination is entitled to deference." In re B.W. , 2022 UT App 131, ¶ 69, 521 P.3d 896.
¶4 Father argues that the juvenile court's analysis regarding whether it was strictly necessary to terminate his parental rights was "incomplete and incorrect." In particular, he asserts that the juvenile court should have placed Child in the permanent custody and guardianship of Foster Parents rather than terminating his parental rights.
¶5 He first argues that the juvenile court improperly focused on Father's relationship with Foster Parents because that "turned its focus away from the best interests of Child."
However, Father also acknowledges that the relationship between a biological parent and foster parents may affect the best interest determination and is particularly relevant to the question of whether a permanent guardianship arrangement with foster parents is in a child's best interest. Here, the juvenile court's findings regarding Father's relationship with Foster Parents are tied to Child's best interest as a whole.
¶6 The juvenile court reasoned that "[p]ermanent custody and guardianship is typically in a child's best interest where the guardians and the parent have a working, relatively healthy relationship, they are willing to work together to preserve the parent-child relationship, and the child has a healthy relationship with both the guardian and parent." The juvenile court evaluated whether Father had a working relationship with Foster Parents and found that he did not, nor was he likely to be able to maintain one. That finding was supported by other findings and by testimony at trial.
¶7 The court found that Father's decision not to participate in mediation indicated a lack of engagement with Foster Parents.2 Furthermore, Foster Mother testified that she had not had a conversation with Father over the time Child was in the foster home. Her contact was limited to passively monitoring visitation. Foster Mother also testified that Child struggled some with the virtual visits and did not request visits with Father. She testified that Foster Parents were committed to maintaining Child's relationship with Father, but they wanted more control to assure that any contact was in Child's best interest, taking her choice into consideration. Additionally, the juvenile court noted Father's pattern of conflict with his own family members when they offered assistance with Child, as well as Father's failure to make choices for Child's benefit such as permitting family to help rather than leaving her homeless and cut off from support. Given Father's pattern of conflict with Child's past caregivers and the lack of engagement between Father and Foster Parents, the evidence supported the juvenile court's determination that Father and Foster Parents did not have a working relationship that would make a permanent custody arrangement with Foster Parents feasible.
¶8 Father also asserts that the juvenile court erred in considering a conflict with Father's brother (Uncle) regarding Child in 2019. Father alleges that "the juvenile court relied on Father's history with" Uncle when the court determined that permanent custody and guardianship was not an appropriate arrangement for Child. He contends that relying on the conflict was inappropriate because Father and Uncle had re-established their relationship shortly before trial.3 However, Father misstates the juvenile court's findings and the supporting evidence.
¶9 The juvenile court's finding that "Father's history with family members who have attempted to help him reveals a pattern of unhealthy conflict and arguments" is not limited to Father's removal of Child from Uncle in 2019. Rather, the juvenile court noted a long pattern of conflict with family members due to Father's erratic behavior over the years. Testimony at trial showed that Father had lived with various family members as an adult, usually only for months at a time before conflict would lead to Father's departure. For example, Father's father (Grandfather) testified that he would let Father live with him for periods of time but required Father to have a job. Father usually left after a period of months because he rarely held a job longer than several months. Indeed, after Father removed Child from Uncle's home, he and Child stayed with Grandfather, but with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial