The recently decided case of In re E.A., 2018 UT App 83 is instructive with respect to the degree of evidence required to terminate parental rights.

The child at issue was removed from the home when the Father had left the child unattended, and when the police arrived, the officers determined that Mother was unable to care for the children and that the house was below minimum standards.

The Father relinquished his parental rights shortly before trial. Thus, on Mother’s parental rights were at issue.

The Mother was given a service plan, which included individual therapy for mental illness. She also needed to obtain suitable housing for the children. During the pendency of the case, she had demonstrated she was clean from illicit substances, and this was no longer an issue at the time of trial.

The presence of mental illness, in and of itself, is insufficient to terminate parental rights. The evidence must show how the mental illness impacts the person’s ability to be an appropriate parent.

In the instant case, there was no such evidence.

The party seeking termination bears the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination. There are instances in which, such evidence has been provided, the burden shifts to the defendant parent to persuade the Court that the evidence is not clear and convincing. This was not such a case.

There are also cases in which the Court’s findings of fact are insufficient to detailed to allow a reviewing court to understand the logical steps the Court took to reach its ultimate conclusions. But such was not the case here; rather, the evidence itself was simply insufficient to justify termination.

The state’s primary evidence for termination was that Mother had not successfully completed her service plan. But the Mother’s psychological evaluation had not been entered into evidence, nor was there any subsidiary evidence as to Mother’s diagnosis, follow up recommendations, level of impairment, or how her mental illness actually affected the children or her ability to care for them.

The Mother’s evidence had shown, on the other hand, that her recent interactions with the children had been appropriate and that she either had appropriate housing, or the ability to obtain appropriate housing for the children. She held a steady job and had the ability to care for the children’s needs.

The state argued that Mother’s failure to follow the service plan was not the sole basis for terminating her parental Roth’s, but rather, that there had been a failure of parental adjustment.

Failure of parental adjustment occurs when the parent is unable or unwilling, within a reasonable period of time, to correct the situation which had caused the child or children to be removed from the home.

In the instant case, however, the concern about illicit substances had been remedied and the evidence showed the Mother had a steady job and the ability to care for the children’s needs.

In this posture, the evidence that Mother had failed to complete her service plan was insufficient to warrant termination of parental rights.

The matter was remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings.

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.