Mother was a minor child who lived with her parents (the child’s Grandparents) and five siblings. Tragically, her oldest sister sex-trafficked her and she became HIV infected and pregnant as a result of a rape by a man whose identity was unknown.

DCFS became involved with the family when they received a report that Mother had threatened to kill herself and her child shortly after the child’s birth. Mother was found living in a park with her child. She denied any intent to harm her child but threatened to kill herself if forced to return to Grandparents’ house at that time.

DCFS filed petitions for abuse, neglect, and dependency as to both Mother and Child. Following a shelter hearing, the juvenile court made findings that Mother had been adjudicated incompetent to stand trial at a previous delinquency matter and both she and the child were ordered to remain in DCFS custody.

Mother had several outbursts at the group home and, at one point, the child became dehydrated and needed to be rushed to the hospital. Mother was found to lack even the most basic caregiving skills. She also lacked the cognitive skills to keep the child safe.

Mother was eventually returned to Grandparents’ home and Child was placed in foster care. The juvenile court set a primary permanency goal for the child of reunification with Mother and a secondary permanency goal of adoption. Reunification services were ordered for Mother in which she was required to undergo therapy for past trauma, take her medicine, have her HIV monitored, and engage with her peer parent to acquire parenting skills. She was granted supervised parent time with Child. Grandparents were also recommended to participate in family therapy.

Sadly, Mother failed to complete her reunification services. The primary permanency goal was then changed to reunification with Grandparents. Unfortunately, this was not successful either. Grandparents failed to ensure Mother attended her medical appointments for her HIV, failed to participate in peer parenting, and had allowed Mother’s older sister (the one who allegedly trafficked her) to move back into the home. Grandparents had also allowed Child to be in Mother’s unsupervised care for substantial periods of time.

Because of these concerns, the primary permanency goal for the Child was changed to adoption. She had bonded with her foster parents, who expressed the desire to adopt her. A termination hearing was held. A psychologist testified at the termination hearing regarding the child’s best interests. Following the hearing, the juvenile court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and an order terminating Mother’s parental rights. Mother appealed.

In order to terminate parental rights in Utah, there is a two-pronged inquiry: 1) whether statutory grounds for termination can be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and 2) whether the termination is “strictly necessary” for the child’s best interests.

On appeal Mother argued that the juvenile court erred by not fully exploring the option of permanent guardianship and custody of the Child for the Grandparents. Mother did not dispute that there were statutory grounds for termination. Rather, she relied on the case of In re BTB, 2018 UT App. 157 to argue that termination was not proven to be strictly necessary because reunification services had not been offered to Grandparents.

The Utah Court of Appeals noted that BTB requires juvenile courts to consider or explore alternatives to termination of parental rights before finding that termination is strictly necessary for the best interests of the child.

However, in the instant case, the juvenile court had in fact explored and considered the alternative of guardianship and custody for the Grandparents but this had not been successful. The Court held that it was not necessary, as Mother argued, for the juvenile court to offer additional services in order to conclude that it was strictly necessary for the child’s best interests to terminate her parental rights.

See In re CT 2018 UT 233.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.