A.A. v. State

Citations: 266 P.3d 844; 2011 UT App 397; 2011 WL 5885582Docket: No. 20100878-CA

Court: Court of Appeals of Utah; November 24, 2011; Utah; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appellant A.A. (Mother) challenges the juvenile court's decision to terminate her parental rights concerning her thirteen-year-old daughter, D.R.A. Mother acknowledges her unfitness as a parent but asserts that the State did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in her daughter's best interest. The juvenile court previously terminated Mother's rights to her fifteen-year-old son, D.L.A., and daughter D.R.A. due to Mother's diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, which rendered her unable to care for her children. Despite being in a psychiatric facility and the children being placed into DCFS custody, Mother did not fully engage in mental health treatment and denied having any issues.

Initially, the goal for D.R.A. was reunification, but this changed to adoption or permanent guardianship due to Mother's lack of progress. D.R.A. remained in the same foster home, but the foster parents were not interested in adoption. Attempts to place the children with relatives were unsuccessful, and while the caseworker acknowledged challenges in finding a placement for a twelve-year-old, he considered D.R.A. to be very adoptable. D.R.A. expressed that she did not want to be adopted and opposed the termination of Mother's rights. Despite this, she maintained a positive relationship with Mother during supervised visits, which the caseworker described as affectionate and appropriate. The caseworker also noted some behavioral issues from D.R.A., potentially stemming from the ongoing termination proceedings, but acknowledged her overall well-being in her foster environment.

The juvenile court found multiple grounds for termination of Mother's rights due to her mental illness and inability to remedy her situation, concluding that it was in D.R.A.'s best interest to terminate Mother's parental rights. The appellate court agreed with Mother, reversing the juvenile court's decision.

The court recognized that there were no realistic adoption prospects, that Daughter loved her Mother and opposed the termination of parental rights, but ultimately ruled that termination was in Daughter's best interest. Key factors included: reunification was not a viable option, the relationship could only be maintained through supervised visits, Daughter was deemed 'adoptable' and required a permanent home, and her relationship with Mother obstructed her path to permanency. The court concluded that terminating parental rights would facilitate Daughter's adoption. 

On appeal, Mother argued that the evidence did not support the juvenile court's determination regarding the best interest of Daughter, although she did not contest her status as an unfit parent or the termination of her rights concerning Son. The appellate court noted that the issue of termination involves mixed questions of law and fact, requiring significant deference to the juvenile court's decision. To overturn the ruling, the appellate court must find that the decision was against the clear weight of the evidence. 

For parental rights termination, the juvenile court must establish: (1) grounds for termination per Utah law, and (2) that termination serves the child's best interests, both supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court must consider the child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs, the child’s own desires if capable of expressing them, and the parents’ efforts to rectify their circumstances for reunification.

The juvenile court must evaluate parental efforts, including the maintenance of contact with the child aimed at reunification, as per Utah Code Ann. 78A-6-509(1)(b)(i). The central issue in this case is Mother’s visitation rights with Daughter, who is currently in foster care. Mother admits she is unfit for custody and acknowledges that reunification is no longer achievable; however, she maintains a loving relationship with Daughter through weekly visits. Daughter opposes adoption and wishes to continue her relationship with Mother, who argues that terminating her parental rights is premature since no adoptive home is currently available.

The juvenile court expressed uncertainty about the best interest of Daughter, recognizing the difficulty of terminating Mother's rights when adoption prospects are limited. The court's decision was influenced by a belief that termination would facilitate adoption, although Mother contends this reasoning is speculative. The State argues against retaining Mother's rights, claiming it would result in legal uncertainty for Daughter, counter to the goal of achieving permanency in child welfare.

While permanency is a key concern, it does not automatically justify termination of parental rights. Additionally, the possibility exists for parental rights to coexist with the goal of adoption. Given that Daughter is older, has a bond with Mother, and desires to maintain that relationship, the court acknowledges that stability could be better achieved by keeping her with her foster family while preserving her connection to Mother. As of the termination hearing, Daughter's adoption prospects are bleak, with only one unsuccessful inquiry and no plans for a more suitable adoptive home.

The unavailability of an adoptive home is a relevant factor in considering the termination of parental rights, but does not prevent it. Continued State intervention is likely regardless of whether the mother’s rights are terminated, and the daughter opposes both termination and adoption. The juvenile court must consider the child's wishes if she has the capacity to express them, which is applicable as she is over twelve years old and her consent is necessary for adoption. The court inferred that the daughter would not accept adoption while her mother retains parental rights but did not conclude she would agree to adoption if those rights were terminated.

The daughter is thriving academically and socially and has a positive relationship with her foster family. However, her behavior deteriorated coinciding with the initiation of termination proceedings, suggesting she flourished under the existing arrangement. The established loving relationship between the mother and daughter, marked by positive weekly visits, is significant. Although the mother is unable to provide a safe environment, her condition does not affect these visits. 

The court found that the grounds for termination—lack of viable reunification and the inability to move beyond supervised visits—do not justify termination as being in the daughter’s best interest. The mother argues that preserving visitation rights supports the daughter’s stability and continuity. Termination is deemed premature as the daughter has a strong bond with her mother, is doing well in her placement, and opposes termination. 

Additionally, without the mother’s rights being terminated, adoption is impossible, and there is no prospective adoptive home available. The law recognizes a parent's right to maintain relationships with their child, and termination of rights requires clear and convincing evidence. The mother seeks only the right to continue visits, not custody, acknowledging her unfitness. The court notes that typically, a child's best interests align with terminating an unfit parent's rights, but this case is an exception.

Utah courts prioritize the best interests of the child when considering the termination of parental rights, even in cases of parental misconduct. In this case, despite limited interaction between the mother and daughter, the benefits of maintaining their relationship outweigh the uncertain advantages of severing it. The court emphasized that while current evidence does not clearly and convincingly support terminating the mother's rights, future developments, such as the availability of an adoptive home, could lead to a different conclusion. Therefore, the juvenile court's finding that termination was in the child’s best interest was deemed erroneous, resulting in a reversal of that decision. Additionally, it was noted that the father of the son had already lost his parental rights, and the daughter does not have a known legal father. The definition of a dependent child includes those lacking proper care without parental fault, as per Utah law.