Summary
The Utah Supreme Court reviewed a parental-rights termination proceeding involving two children and their biological father. The court addressed the statutory requirements of grounds for termination, the child’s best interests, and whether termination was “strictly necessary” under Utah law. It affirmed the Utah Court of Appeals’ remand for the juvenile court to reconsider the termination petition under the clarified legal standard.
Holdings
- Establishing a statutory ground for termination does not make termination almost automatically in the child's best interest. The juvenile court must separately determine whether termination is in the child's best interest, with the petitioner bearing the applicable burden of proof.
- After finding a statutory ground for termination, the court must determine as part of the best-interest inquiry whether termination is strictly necessary to promote the child's welfare and best interest.
- The strictly necessary and best-interest analysis must be undertaken from the child's point of view, while the court must account for the legislatively established preference for preserving natural-family relationships.
- The court of appeals properly remanded the matter for the juvenile court to reconsider the termination petition under the correct interpretation of the Act.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Utah Court of Appeals properly disavowed prior language suggesting that, once statutory grounds for termination are established, termination is almost automatically in a child's best interest.
- Whether the requirement that termination be strictly necessary is part of the best-interest inquiry or constitutes a separate and sequentially primary element of termination.
- Whether termination must be strictly necessary only when an adoption or similar permanent change in the child's living situation is contemplated.
- Whether the court of appeals properly remanded the case for the juvenile court to reconsider the termination petition under the clarified statutory standard.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (25)
- In Interest of B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶¶ 1, 13-63, 436 P.3d 206(followed)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶ 72, 99 P.3d 801(followed)
- Pulham v. Kirsling, 2019 UT 18, ¶ 18, 443 P.3d 1217(followed)
- State ex rel. A.C.M., 2009 UT 30, ¶ 23, 221 P.3d 185(followed)
- State ex rel. T.E., 2011 UT 51, ¶¶ 17-18, 266 P.3d 739(followed)
- In re Castillo, 632 P.2d 855, 856-57 (Utah 1981)(followed)
- In Interest of Winger, 558 P.2d 1311, 1313 (Utah 1976)(followed)
- In re J. P., 648 P.2d 1364, 1367, 1377 (Utah 1982)(followed)
- In re Estate of S.T.T., 2006 UT 46, ¶ 28, 144 P.3d 1083(followed)
- State ex rel. C.K., 2000 UT App 11, ¶¶ 18, 23-24, 996 P.2d 1059(followed)
Showing top 10 of 25.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…