A recent Utah Court of Appeals case elucidates the issue of child emotional abuse and neglect as defined by Utah’s statute.

The case of In re K.B., 2017 UT App 210 deals with the evidentiary standard for a finding of child emotional abuse and neglect.

In that case the juvenile court had substantiated the DCFS finding that mother had inflicted non-severe physical abuse or neglect on her teenaged minor daughter K.B. during a heated argument in which she had slapped the child in the mouth, causing bleeding on her lower lip. This contributed to an order of DCFS “protective supervision“ of the mother’s three minor children. The appellate court agreed with mother’s assertion that the juvenile court did not have statutory authority to substantiate a DCFS finding of non-severe abuse or neglect in determining whether to grant the DCFS Petition for protective supervision of the minor children. The Court remanded for further findings on whether DCFS should be awarded protective supervision.

It should be noted, however, that the appellate court had previously determined, in a prior order, that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that mother physically abused K.B. when she slapped her across the face.

The juvenile court also made a finding that Mother had emotionally abused and neglected K.B. by her actions showing “apparent hatred and disgust” for the child’s father (with whom she shared joint custody post-divorce), and her custodial interference. This finding was overturned on appeal because of the lack of sufficient evidence.

With respect to the “hatred and disgust” shown by mother to father (who were divorced), the juvenile court placed great emphasis on an instance in which the mother had grounded her daughter from going to her high school prom. The circumstances arose when father purchased a prom dress for K.B. which Mother determined was inappropriate and immodest. She forbade the child from going to the prom unless she wore her dress from the previous year. K.B. ended up not attending the prom and, within a month, left to live with her father.

With respect to the custodial interference charges (of which there were nine criminal counts pending), mother argued that the father was significantly late in picking up the children several times and that they did not want to go on visitation on those occasions. She also had suspicions of the father being a possible sexual predator based on his engaging in inappropriate conduct over the internet with a 17-year old minor.

The Court of Appeals noted the legal standard for a finding of emotional abuse and neglect; namely that the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s actions resulted in non-accidental “harm” to the child. “Harm” is defined by statute to include “emotional damage that results in a serious impairment in the child’s growth, development, behavior, or psychological functioning.”

The Court determined there was insufficient evidence to show the mother’s actions had resulted in such harm. The Court noted that not every instance of custodial interference results in harm as defined by the juvenile court statute. There needs to be specific evidence of the harm in order to find emotional abuse and neglect. The Court noted that the criminal charges had not been adjudicated at the time of the juvenile court case.

The final issue related to the juvenile court’s finding that K.B. was a neglected child within the meaning of the statute providing that a child is at risk of being neglected or abused because another child in the home is neglected or abused.

K.B.’s siblings, L.B. and B.B., were found by this statute to be neglected because K.B. was found to be abused when her mother slapped her across the face. The Court of Appeals upheld this finding.

But the Court agreed with mother that it was circular reasoning to find K.B. to be neglected pursuant to this statute. The disapproved circular logic went something like this: K.B.’s being found to be abused leads to her siblings L.B. and B.B.’s being found to be neglected because they live in the same home as K.B. K.B., in turn, is therefore found to be neglected because she resides in the same home as L.B. and B.B., who were found to be neglected because they reside in the same home as K.B.

This outcome could not have been intended by the legislature, because it would lead to a different result for an only child as compared to a similarly situated child with siblings.

The net result of the Court of Appeals’ ruling was that there was insufficient evidence to find the children had suffered emotional abuse or neglect. The finding that L.B. and B.B. were neglected by virtue of their residence in the same home as an abused child was upheld. The finding that K.B. was a neglected child by reason of her residence in the same home as her neglected siblings was disapproved. The matter was remanded to the juvenile court to determine whether the DCFS Petition for protective supervision of the minor children should be granted. On tenant, the juvenile court could not substantiate the DCFS findings of abuse or neglect in deciding the Petition.

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.