State v. C.K. and J.K

18 Citing cases

  1. In re Adoption of T.H

    2007 UT App. 341 (Utah Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 11 times
    Determining that even when a termination of parental rights issue arises during a contested adoption proceeding, a court must still determine whether the child's best interests will be served by terminating the parental rights

    To the extent Stepfather challenges the district court's interpretation of Utah Code section 78-30-4.16, he raises "questions of law that we review for correctness, giving no particular deference to [the district] court['s] decisions." In re adoption of B.B.G., 2007 UT App 149, ¶ 4, 160 P.3d 9; see also In re C.K., 2000 UT App 11, ¶ 17, 996 P.2d 1059 ("Questions about . . . the legal accuracy of the trial court's statements present issues of law, which we review for correctness. . . .") To the extent Stepfather challenges the district court's conclusion that the termination of parental rights would not be in Daughter's best interests, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See In re AG., 2001 UT App 87, ¶ 7, 27 P.3d 562.

  2. B.T.B. v. V.T.B. (In re B.T.B.)

    2020 UT 36 (Utah 2020)   Cited 40 times
    Concluding that "termination must be strictly necessary to promote the child's best interest"

    ¶51 The court of appeals, on the other hand, has expressly interpreted the Act to require the best interest finding be made by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g. , State, in interest of F.B. , 2012 UT App 36, ¶ 2, 271 P.3d 824 ; State, in interest of J.D. , 2011 UT App 184, ¶ 11, 257 P.3d 1062 ; State ex rel. C.K. , 2000 UT App 11, ¶ 23, 996 P.2d 1059 ; State ex rel. R.A.J. , 1999 UT App 329, ¶ 7, 991 P.2d 1118 ; State in Interest of R.N.J. , 908 P.2d 345, 351 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). For example, in State ex rel. C.K. , the court of appeals reviewed the decision of a juvenile court to not terminate parental rights.

  3. State in re B.M.S. v. H.J

    2003 UT App. 51 (Utah Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Upholding the juvenile court's refusal to terminate Father's parental rights despite abandonment of child, where cutting off his child support obligation was not in the child's best interest

    See In re A.G., 2001 UT App 87, ¶ 7, 27 P.3d 562. "`We will disturb the juvenile court's decision not to terminate parental rights only if its findings are clearly erroneous.'" In re C.K., 2000 UT App 11, ¶ 17, 996 P.2d 1059 (citation omitted). Moreover, we defer to the juvenile court in its findings of fact because of its advantageous position in assessing credibility.

  4. A.B. v. R.C. (In re H.C.)

    2022 UT App. 146 (Utah Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    See Commonwealth Prop. Advocates, LLC v. Mortgage Elec. Registration System, Inc., 2011 UT App 232, ¶ 5, 263 P.3d 397. See also In re C.K., 2000 UT App 11, ¶ 17, 996 P.2d 1059 (stating that "issues of law" are reviewed "for correctness, according no deference to the [juvenile] court").

  5. A.B. v. R.C. (In re Interest of H.C.)

    523 P.3d 736 (Utah Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    SeeCommonwealth Prop. Advocates, LLC v. Mortgage Elec. Registration System, Inc. , 2011 UT App 232, ¶ 5, 263 P.3d 397. See alsoIn re C.K. , 2000 UT App 11, ¶ 17, 996 P.2d 1059 (stating that "issues of law" are reviewed "for correctness, according no deference to the [juvenile] court").

  6. Davis v. Davis

    2011 UT App. 311 (Utah Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that payment of school fees may not be ordered as child support without supporting findings

    “Questions about the legal adequacy of findings of fact and the legal accuracy of the trial court's statements present issues of law, which we review for correctness, according no deference to the trial court.” In re C.K., 2000 UT App 11, ¶ 17, 996 P.2d 1059. ¶ 9 Fourth, Corey argues that the trial court acted contrary to Utah law by ordering that the parties need not provide one another with proof of payment in order to receive reimbursement from the other

  7. State ex Rel. B.R

    2006 UT App. 354 (Utah Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 11 times

    See id. Even after statutory grounds for termination have been established, the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of a child would be served by terminating parental rights also falls "squarely" on the State. In re C.K., 2000 UT App 11, ¶ 21, 996 P.2d 1059. ¶ 85 The burden that shifts to a parent, however, is never the burden of proof, but rather only the "burden of production."

  8. In Interest of J.F

    2006 UT App. 18 (Utah Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 1 times
    Affirming juvenile court's termination of mother's parental rights and stating that sufficient evidence in support of termination included that "[mother] did not comply with her safety plan precluding contact with the father and she did not understand the danger to the children posed by contact with the father"

    Finally, a challenge to the determination based upon the findings is reviewed for correctness. See In re C.K., 2000 UT App 11, ¶ 17, 996 P.2d 1059. L.F. does not challenge any specific ground for termination.

  9. State ex Rel. S.O

    2005 UT App. 393 (Utah Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 13 times
    In State ex rel. S.O. v. State, 2005 UT App 393, 122 P.3d 686 (per curiam), the father appealed an order terminating his parental rights arguing that the court erred by applying Utah law to his acts that occurred in Arizona.

    Finally, a challenge to the termination based upon the findings is reviewed for correctness. See In re C.K., 2000 UT App 11, ¶ 17, 996 P.2d 1059. Although we granted him an opportunity for full briefing, H.O. has not satisfied his burden on appeal by marshaling the evidence supporting the findings, then demonstrating that despite this evidence, the juvenile court's findings are so lacking in support as to be against the clear weight of the evidence. See In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66 at ¶ 5, 21 P.3d 680. H.O. has not marshaled the substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's findings, and his presentation seeks to reargue his position by a selective and incomplete marshaling of the evidence.

  10. In Interest of A.R

    2005 UT App. 182 (Utah Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    To the extent B.R. challenges the termination in light of the findings, we review the juvenile court's decision for correctness. See In re C.K., 2000 UT App 11, ¶ 17, 996 P.2d 1059. "Failure of parental adjustment" means that a parent is "unable or unwilling within a reasonable time to substantially correct the circumstances, conduct, or conditions that led to placement of their child outside of their home, notwithstanding reasonable and appropriate efforts made by the Division of Child and Family Services to return the child to that home."