Opinion
Case No. 20010432-CA.
Filed July 5, 2002. (Not For Official Publication)
Appeal from the Fourth District Juvenile, Provo Department, The Honorable Kay A. Lindsay.
Nelson Abbott and Amy L. Clayton, Provo, for Appellants.
Mark L. Shurtleff and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem.
Before Judges Jackson, Greenwood, and Orme.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
S.B. and K.B. (Parents) appeal the termination of their parental rights to A.P., R.B., and K.B., (the Children) on the grounds that they failed to remedy the circumstances that caused the Children to be removed, see Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-407(2) to -(4) (Supp. 2001), and lack of parental adjustment. See id. § 78-3a-407(5).
"`The decision of a trial court to terminate parental rights will be disturbed on appeal only if the findings are clearly erroneous.'" In re S.T., 928 P.2d 393, 398 (Utah Ct.App. 1996) (quoting In re T.E., 761 P.2d 956, 957 (Utah Ct.App. 1988)).
Parents argue that the court erred in terminating their parental rights because the evidence supports a finding that they had complied with four out of five parts of their service plan by the time of the termination hearing and the marshaled evidence could support a finding that they had made substantial improvements in their ability to provide a good home for the Children. While it is true that evidence was presented that Parents had complied with some parts of their service plan, the court determined that Parents still lacked the skills to be fit parents at the time of trial.
Although the evidence is somewhat conflicting as to whether Parents completed four of the five requirements of the service plan, the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings that domestic violence, substandard housing and housekeeping, inadequate supervision, and Parents' lack of parenting skills continued to be sufficiently unremedied at the time of trial that Parents could not provide a safe home for the Children. For example, while Parents have both maintained jobs for the past seven or eight months, their income is not sufficient to sustain their children and maintain adequate housing without housing assistance. However, because Parents made a misrepresentation to the housing authorities, they have been banned from receiving housing assistance for three years and owe past rent to the housing authority.
Evidence was also presented to support the court's finding that S.B. had not internalized the principles he had learned in his domestic violence classes. For example, during the time he was attending domestic violence classes, S.B.'s ex-girlfriend and mother of his child, testified that S.B. had physically struck her. Further evidence was presented that S.B. falsely represented to his domestic violence instructor that his participation in the domestic violence classes was the result of only one episode of domestic violence. The court also found that although K.B. had completed her domestic violence classes, she did not internalize what she had learned.
Finally, Parents failed to avail themselves of the help available and required to place themselves in a position to adequately parent the Children. Parents did not follow through on the psychological evaluation recommendations that they engage in individual and group psychotherapy to help them deal with the many issues which interfered with their ability to parent their special needs children.
Parents do not directly contest that the termination of their parental rights is in the Children's best interest, but it is important to note that the court had sufficient evidence based on the Children's therapists' and foster parents' testimony to conclude that it was in the Children's best interests to be adopted and remain in a stable and structured environment where they can continue to have their physical and mental needs met.
The evidence presented at trial amply supports the court's conclusion that
DCFS . . . made a diligent effort to provide appropriate services to [Parents]. [However,] to date, [Parents] have substantially neglected, willfully refused or been unable to remedy the circumstances that caused the children to be in an out-of-home placement. There is a substantial likelihood that they will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care in the near future within the meaning of Utah Code Annotated, section 78-3a-407(4).
See In re M.L., 965 P.2d 551, 562 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (concluding there was sufficient evidence to terminate mother's parental rights, although her progress on second plan was more substantial than on first plan, because she failed to internalize what had been taught and her parenting ability remained inadequate).
Because the record supports the court's findings that Parents failed to remedy the circumstances that caused the out-of-home placement of the Children and their failure of parental adjustment, we affirm the juvenile court's termination of parental rights.
WE CONCUR: Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge, and Gregory K. Orme, Judge.