In order for a Utah juvenile court to terminate a parent’s parental rights, it needs to find that the termination is strictly necessary for the child’s best interests.
In a recent termination case DCFS found that Mother was using drugs and neglecting Sister and so placed Sister with Grandmother. Brother was already living with grandmother.
Following a disposition hearing the juvenile court set a primary goal of reunification and set up a child and family plan. Mother was to receive an initial substance abuse and mental health assessment but made no progress in her treatment. She was a no show on all but five of ninety-six scheduled drug tests and tested positive on all five.
Still, to her credit, Mother still demonstrated an attachment to the children and visited them on a bi-weekly basis. The visits were supervised by a DCFS caseworker and required a six and a half hour round trip drive. When Mother had to cancel her visits, she often did not notify Grandmother. Brother was disappointed when this happened.
Early on in the visits, the caseworker noticed that Mother would make inappropriate comments to Brother, such as that Grandmother was not a very good parent. She would send Grandmother insulting text messages and had trouble respecting boundaries.
The court held a termination trial. The court considered whether awarding permanent guardianship to Grandmother was an alternative that would “equally protect and benefit the children.” However, the court found that termination was strictly necessary for several reasons.
First, the court found that Mother and Grandmother did not have a relationship and did not communicate well. Mother herself had conceded that she and Grandmother could not co-parent well.
Second, the court found that Mother had a history of making inappropriate comments about Grandmother to Brother, which caused friction between Brother and Grandmother.
Third, the round trip for a visit with Mother was six-and-a-half hours, and Mother did not communicate with Grandmother to let her know if she was unable to attend visits. This caused the children to need to endure the travel time needlessly.
Fourth, the children were happy and thriving in Grandmother’s case. They needed a permanent home, and from the children’s point of view, Grandmother’s home fit the bill.
Mother challenged the juvenile court’s decision. The Court of Appeals noted that whether a parent’s rights should be terminated is a mixed question of fact and law.
Mother’s two big arguments were (1) that the court did not appropriately weigh certain evidence, and (2) that the court inappropriately focused on the needs of the adults rather than the children, such as by finding that Mother and Grandmother could not adequately co-parent.
Requiring the “strictly necessary” analysis ensures that courts will thoughtfully consider “the range of options that could promote the child’s welfare and best interest.” If the court follows this analysis, its decision is entitled to deference.
Mother argued that the juvenile court’s finding that Brother was upset when she missed visits cut against terminating her parental rights. She also argued that the court should have given more consideration to the fact that she had recently stopped her inappropriate comments to Brother about Grandmother.
But the Court of Appeals held that these arguments took issue “with the manner in which the juvenile court weighed the evidence” rather than its following the statutory mandate. The Court gave deference to the trial court’s findings.
Mother also argued that in a permanent custody and guardianship situation, the parent has a handful of “residual rights” and the parent and guardian are not required or expected to co-parent the child, such as if they were divorced parents.
The Court noted that it is true that permanent guardianship does not denote a coparenting relationship, but that the trial court’s primary concern was more about the substance of the relationship rather than the specific term it used. The court was concerned whether it was in the children’s best interests to be pitted between a parent and guardian who could not get along with or communicate with each other.
The Court noted that “long-term guardianship arrangements are typically only in a child’s best interests where the guardians and the parent have a working, relatively healthy relationship in which they are both willing to work together to preserve the parent-child relationship and where the child has a healthy relationship with both the guardian and the parent. Thus, where a parent and guardian have little to no relationship, it may not be in the child’s best interests for there to be a permanent guardianship and residual parental rights.
The Court found that the juvenile court did consider whether the termination was strictly necessary from the child’s point of view. It noted that the children suffered when Mother missed her visitation appointments with the children and that Mother herself had acknowledged that the “conflict” between herself and Grandmother was “unhealthy” for the children.
In sum, the juvenile court did consider the option of a permanent guardianship and custody arrangement versus termination of parental rights. The court also made detailed findings in support of its conclusion that termination was strictly necessary from the child’s point of view.
Therefore the Court of Appeals upheld the juvenile court’s determination.
See In re KR and RB, 2023 UT App 75.