Opinion
No. 20220671-CA
12-30-2022
STATE of Utah, IN the INTEREST OF A.K., a person under eighteen years of age. C.K., Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee.
Freyja Johnson, Salt Lake City, and Emily Adams, Attorneys for Appellant Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellee Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian ad Litem
Freyja Johnson, Salt Lake City, and Emily Adams, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian ad Litem
Before Judges Gregory K. Orme, Ryan M. Harris, and Ryan D. Tenney.
Per Curiam Decision
PER CURIAM:
¶1 C.K. (Father) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights in A.K. (Child). We affirm.
¶2 "To terminate parental rights, a juvenile court must make two separate findings." In re C.T. , 2018 UT App 233, ¶ 12, 438 P.3d 100 (quotation simplified). "First, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that there is at least one statutory ground for termination." Id. (quotation simplified). "Second, a court must find that termination of the parent's rights is in the best interests of the child." Id. (quotation simplified). A court may terminate a parent's rights only if it finds that termination is strictly necessary for the best interest of a child. Id. "We review deferentially a lower court's best-interest determination, and will overturn it ‘only if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.’ " In re J.J.W. , 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 18, 520 P.3d 38 (quoting In re E.R ., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 31, 496 P.3d 58 ). "Although we defer to juvenile courts‘ factual determinations, in reviewing their conclusions we do so with an exacting focus on the proper evidentiary standard." In re G.D. , 2021 UT 19, ¶ 73, 491 P.3d 867.
¶3 Father contends that the juvenile court erred in determining that termination of his parental rights was in Child's best interest and was strictly necessary. "[O]nce a statutory ground for termination is found, identifying the option for the child that promotes her welfare and best interest takes precedence over the other considerations." In re B.T.B. , 2020 UT 60, ¶ 61, 472 P.3d 827. The best interest analysis must be "undertaken from the child's point of view." Id. ¶ 64. And "when the court considers a child's welfare and best interest, the court's focus should be firmly fixed on finding the outcome that best secures the child's well-being." Id. "The strictly necessary language is designed to ensure that the court pause long enough to thoughtfully consider the range of available options that could promote the child's welfare and best interest." Id. ¶ 69. "[I]f a court has complied with its statutory obligations, its resultant best interest determination is entitled to deference." In re B.W. , 2022 UT App 131, ¶ 69, 521 P.3d 896.
The juvenile court found multiple grounds for termination, which Father does not challenge.
¶4 Father argues that the juvenile court's analysis regarding whether it was strictly necessary to terminate his parental rights was "incomplete and incorrect." In particular, he asserts that the juvenile court should have placed Child in the permanent custody and guardianship of Foster Parents rather than terminating his parental rights.
¶5 He first argues that the juvenile court improperly focused on Father's relationship with Foster Parents because that "turned its focus away from the best interests of Child." However, Father also acknowledges that the relationship between a biological parent and foster parents may affect the best interest determination and is particularly relevant to the question of whether a permanent guardianship arrangement with foster parents is in a child's best interest. Here, the juvenile court's findings regarding Father's relationship with Foster Parents are tied to Child's best interest as a whole.
¶6 The juvenile court reasoned that "[p]ermanent custody and guardianship is typically in a child's best interest where the guardians and the parent have a working, relatively healthy relationship, they are willing to work together to preserve the parent-child relationship, and the child has a healthy relationship with both the guardian and parent." The juvenile court evaluated whether Father had a working relationship with Foster Parents and found that he did not, nor was he likely to be able to maintain one. That finding was supported by other findings and by testimony at trial.
¶7 The court found that Father's decision not to participate in mediation indicated a lack of engagement with Foster Parents. Furthermore, Foster Mother testified that she had not had a conversation with Father over the time Child was in the foster home. Her contact was limited to passively monitoring visitation. Foster Mother also testified that Child struggled some with the virtual visits and did not request visits with Father. She testified that Foster Parents were committed to maintaining Child's relationship with Father, but they wanted more control to assure that any contact was in Child's best interest, taking her choice into consideration. Additionally, the juvenile court noted Father's pattern of conflict with his own family members when they offered assistance with Child, as well as Father's failure to make choices for Child's benefit such as permitting family to help rather than leaving her homeless and cut off from support. Given Father's pattern of conflict with Child's past caregivers and the lack of engagement between Father and Foster Parents, the evidence supported the juvenile court's determination that Father and Foster Parents did not have a working relationship that would make a permanent custody arrangement with Foster Parents feasible.
Father argues that mediations are generally for the purpose of relinquishing parental rights and that he did not participate because he had no intent to relinquish. However, Father's counsel requested the mediation and the court ordered it, which indicates that Father was interested in participating, and was ordered to participate, in mediation. Furthermore, mediation is an opportunity to resolve a child welfare case without trial. It is not necessarily limited to relinquishing parental rights, but could include negotiating other arrangements for the benefit of Child.
¶8 Father also asserts that the juvenile court erred in considering a conflict with Father's brother (Uncle) regarding Child in 2019. Father alleges that "the juvenile court relied on Father's history with" Uncle when the court determined that permanent custody and guardianship was not an appropriate arrangement for Child. He contends that relying on the conflict was inappropriate because Father and Uncle had re-established their relationship shortly before trial. However, Father misstates the juvenile court's findings and the supporting evidence.
Father argues that the juvenile court's consideration of the conflict with Uncle is "improperly backwards facing" because "the best-interest inquiry is generally to be conducted in present-tense fashion." In re Z.C.W. , 2021 UT App 98, ¶ 12, 500 P.3d 94. He argues that the reestablishing of Father's relationship with Uncle should have been considered rather than Father's history of conflict. Father overstates the "present-tense" inquiry, however. Considering what a child's best interest is at the time of trial does not require ignoring historical patterns. Rather, "[i]n termination cases, the juvenile court must weigh a parent's past conduct with her present abilities." In re B.R. , 2007 UT 82, ¶ 13, 171 P.3d 435. Father's disagreement with the weight given to the evidence does not equate with the evidence being improperly considered.
¶9 The juvenile court's finding that "Father's history with family members who have attempted to help him reveals a pattern of unhealthy conflict and arguments" is not limited to Father's removal of Child from Uncle in 2019. Rather, the juvenile court noted a long pattern of conflict with family members due to Father's erratic behavior over the years. Testimony at trial showed that Father had lived with various family members as an adult, usually only for months at a time before conflict would lead to Father's departure. For example, Father's father (Grandfather) testified that he would let Father live with him for periods of time but required Father to have a job. Father usually left after a period of months because he rarely held a job longer than several months. Indeed, after Father removed Child from Uncle's home, he and Child stayed with Grandfather, but with a familiar result of leaving after a few months. He could have left Child there to give her stability, but again removed Child from a stable and supportive situation. In sum, the juvenile court properly considered Father's pattern of conflict with his family in a broader sense than the 2019 conflict with Uncle.
¶10 Finally, Father argues that the juvenile court failed to consider that his two older children were in a permanent custody and guardianship with Father's sister (Aunt) and Father's good relationship with Child. From the record and the juvenile court's thorough order, it is clear that the court fully considered the evidence. Indeed, the juvenile court's order, particularly regarding the best interest analysis, is quite detailed and expressly sets forth considerations for determining whether termination of parental rights is strictly necessary. The juvenile court addressed Child's specific needs and circumstances in light of those considerations.
Father also argues that the juvenile court erred in its determination because Child's legal bond with her siblings would be severed. However, Father ignores that the juvenile court specifically found that Foster Parents are more likely than Father to "provide [Child] with an opportunity for a more stable and consistent relationship[ ] with her siblings and other healthy biological family members."
¶11 The juvenile court's order includes references to Aunt's custody of the older children, and it acknowledges the loving bond between Father and Child among the specific factors in its best interest analysis. Father's dissatisfaction appears to be with the weight given to the evidence favorable to him. However, in light of the juvenile court's detailed findings and conclusions, we cannot conclude that the juvenile court "failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence." In re J.J.W. , 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 18, 520 P.3d 38 (quotation simplified).
¶12 Affirmed.