In re K.W. and I.W. (A.G. v. State) , 2012 UT App 281 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                          IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    ‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐
    State of Utah, in the interest of K.W. and    )          PER CURIAM DECISION
    I.W., persons under eighteen years of         )
    age.                                          )           Case No. 20120684‐CA
    ____________________________________          )
    )                  FILED
    A.G.,                                         )              (October 4, 2012)
    )
    Appellant,                            )            
    2012 UT App 281
    )
    v.                                            )
    )
    State of Utah,                                )
    )
    Appellee.                             )
    ‐‐‐‐‐
    Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department, 1061588
    The Honorable Kimberly K. Hornak
    Attorneys:       Michael McDonald, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
    Mark L. Shurtleff and John Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
    Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem
    ‐‐‐‐‐
    Before Judges Orme, Thorne, and Roth.
    ¶1     A.G. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights. Mother claims that
    the evidence was insufficient to support the grounds for termination and that the
    juvenile court erred in finding those grounds due to Mother’s testimony that she was
    aware of the deficits in her parenting, was committed to remaining sober in the future,
    was on a waiting list for residential treatment, had housing and employment, and was
    making the necessary changes in her life. Mother also challenges the determination that
    it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Mother’s parental rights to allow
    them to be adopted. We affirm.
    ¶2     The juvenile court was required “to consider the totality of the evidence
    regarding [Motherʹs] parenting‐‐all of her conduct up to the termination trial.” In re
    B.R., 
    2007 UT 82
    , ¶ 13, 
    171 P.3d 435
    . However,
    the weight which a juvenile court must give any present
    ability evidence is necessarily dependent on the amount of
    time during which the parent displayed an unwillingness or
    inability to improve his or her conduct and on any
    destructive effect the parent’s past conduct or the parent’s
    delay in rectifying the conduct has had on the parent’s
    ability to resume a parent‐child relationship with the child.
    . . . [I]f a parent has demonstrated some improvement in
    parenting ability but not a strong likelihood that the parent
    can provide a proper home for the child in the very near
    future, after a long period of separation, a history of
    problems and failure to remedy, and deterioration of the
    relationship between the child and parent, this court should
    not overturn a court’s order terminating parental rights.
    
    Id.
     (quoting In re M.L., 
    965 P.2d 551
    , 561‐62 (Utah Ct. App. 1998)).
    ¶3      The juvenile court considered Mother’s testimony, provided without any
    supporting proof, that she began attending group counseling after the termination of
    services and was on a waiting list at a residential treatment program. However, the
    court found that Mother admitted to drug use within the thirty days before the
    termination trial and admitted using methamphetamine as recently as a couple of days
    before trial. Mother testified that since the case started, she had used
    methamphetamine once a week, occasionally using it as frequently as three times a
    week. Mother completed a substance abuse evaluation earlier in the case that
    recommended residential treatment at the House of Hope. However, Mother left the
    House of Hope after only a day and a half due to her use of methamphetamine. The
    court found that Mother had not addressed her drug addiction as of the time of the
    termination trial and therefore remained an unfit parent. Mother’s testimony that she
    was living with a friend in Utah County and had obtained employment was also not
    supported by proof other than her own testimony. Significantly, Mother did not claim
    at the time of trial that she was ready to function as a parent to her children and instead
    asked for additional time and services. The juvenile court adequately considered all
    20120684‐CA                                  2
    evidence of Mother’s claimed present parenting ability, and the grounds for termination
    are supported by sufficient evidence.
    ¶4      Mother also claims that the best interests determination was not supported by
    sufficient evidence, “specifically in light of the evidence presented regarding the
    mother’s love for her children, her willingness to do better, and her recent attempts to
    access residential treatment.” At the time of the termination trial, the children had been
    in a foster home for approximately seven months. I.W. had been in that home since the
    age of five weeks. The children were doing well and were bonded with the foster
    parents, who wished to adopt them. During supervised visits, Mother had appeared to
    be overwhelmed with parenting two children. The juvenile court acknowledged that
    Mother loved her children, but because she had not addressed her long‐standing
    substance abuse problem, it was in the children’s best interests to terminate her parental
    rights to allow them to be adopted into a stable home.
    ¶5     “Because of the factually intense nature of such an inquiry, the juvenile court’s
    decision should be afforded a high degree of deference.” Id. ¶ 12. “Thus, in order to
    overturn the juvenile court’s decision, the result must be against the clear weight of the
    evidence or leave the appellate court with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake
    has been made.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “When a
    foundation for the court’s decision exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not
    engage in a reweighing of the evidence.” Id. Accordingly, we affirm the decision to
    terminate Mother’s parental rights.
    ____________________________________
    Gregory K. Orme, Judge
    ____________________________________
    William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
    ____________________________________
    Stephen L. Roth, Judge
    20120684‐CA                                  3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20120684-CA

Citation Numbers: 2012 UT App 281

Filed Date: 10/4/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2021