In re A.H.

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals considers a second appeal in a termination-of-parental-rights case involving Father and two children. After a prior Utah Supreme Court decision upheld the juvenile court’s best-interest determination, the court addresses claims that retained and appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance during the termination trial. The court concludes that all three attorneys performed deficiently and that Father was prejudiced, vacates the termination order as to the two children, and remands for a new trial.

Holdings

1. A parent's right to effective assistance of counsel in a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding may extend to retained counsel who never entered a formal appearance when the attorney-client relationship existed and the attorney undertook to represent the parent.
2. Retained counsel and appointed counsel rendered objectively deficient performance by failing to file required pretrial disclosures, failing to seek timely relief, failing to prepare an adequate defense, and failing to secure or present material witness and expert testimony.
3. Father established prejudice because there was a reasonable probability that the October 2020 termination trial would have produced a different outcome had the juvenile court heard the excluded lay and expert evidence.
4. Because Father proved deficient performance and prejudice, the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights regarding Alice and Liam must be vacated and the matter remanded for a new trial or other appropriate proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Father had a right to effective assistance of counsel from retained counsel even though retained counsel did not enter a formal appearance.
2. Whether retained counsel and appointed counsel rendered objectively deficient performance during the October 2020 termination trial.
3. Whether the attorneys' deficient performance prejudiced Father by creating a reasonable probability that the termination trial would have reached a different result.
4. Whether the court should address Father's reasonable-efforts challenge to DCFS in this appeal.

Disposition

vacated