Summary
The Utah Supreme Court held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to reunification services provided in parental-rights termination proceedings. It concluded that a parent may invoke the ADA at the termination stage, but is entitled only to reasonable modifications of the reunification plan. The court affirmed the termination order because the juvenile court acted within its discretion in determining that no additional reasonable modifications were warranted.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to the provision of reunification services under Utah law.
- Whether a parent may invoke the ADA during a parental-rights termination proceeding rather than bringing a separate action or raising the issue earlier.
- Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by finding that no further reasonable modifications to N.D.'s reunification plan were required.
- Whether DCFS's alleged failure to train caseworkers or refer N.D. to other disability-related agencies constituted an independent ADA claim.
Holdings
- Title II of the ADA applies to the provision of reunification services and to a reunification plan administered by public entities under Utah law.
- A parent may invoke the ADA as a defense or request a modification of the reunification plan during a parental-rights termination proceeding; the claim need not be brought only as a separate action or before the termination proceeding.
- The ADA requires only reasonable modifications, and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that no further modifications, including an additional year of services, were reasonable under the circumstances.
- N.D. could not maintain a standalone ADA claim based solely on alleged failure to train DCFS employees or refer her to other disability-related agencies; the relevant inquiry was whether a reasonable modification to the reunification plan was required.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the ADA applies to the provision of reunification services under Utah Code sections 78A-6-312 and 78A-6-507, but affirm on the ground that the juvenile court judge did not exceed the bounds of his discretion in deciding that requested modifications to the reunification plan in question were not reasonable.” (362 P.3d at 1248)
“The ADA protects a right not to 'be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity.'” (362 P.3d at 1253)
Factual background
K.C., a minor child, was removed from N.D.'s custody after the juvenile court found that K.C.'s father had sexually abused her and expressed concerns about N.D.'s mental and physical health and ability to protect the child. N.D.'s service plan acknowledged extensive disabilities, including schizoaffective disorder and poor vision, and required her to complete seven objectives for reunification. DCFS and the juvenile court made various adjustments to the plan, including adopting mental-health recommendations, providing extra peer-parenting sessions, and allowing additional time, but reunification services were terminated after nearly seventeen months when the court found insufficient progress and determined that more services were not in the child's best interests. N.D. first expressly invoked the ADA during the parental-termination proceeding and sought additional time and disability-related modifications.
Procedural history
The juvenile court removed K.C. from N.D.'s custody, adjudicated K.C. dependent, ordered reunification services, and later terminated those services after finding insubstantial compliance and concluding that additional services were contrary to the child's best interests. After the State filed a termination petition, N.D. invoked the ADA as an affirmative defense, arguing that DCFS had failed to provide or modify reunification services. The juvenile court rejected the ADA defense and terminated N.D.'s parental rights; the Utah Supreme Court held that the ADA applies to reunification services but affirmed because the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding no further reasonable modifications appropriate.