2016 UT App 5

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF K.C.,

A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

D.C.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20150728-CA

Filed January 14, 2016

Third District Juvenile Court, West Jordan Department

The Honorable Tupakk A.G. Renteria

No. 1075966

Jason A. Pietryga, Attorney for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys

for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., and

JUSTICE JOHN A. PEARCE.1

PER CURIAM:

¶1 D.C. (Father) appeals the order terminating his parental 

rights to K.C. We affirm.

 

1. Justice John A. Pearce sat by special assignment as authorized 

by law. See generally Utah R. Jud. Admin. 3-108(3).
In re K.C.

20150728-CA 2 2016 UT App 5

¶2 “[I]n 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.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 

435 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We “review 

the juvenile court’s factual findings based upon the clearly 

erroneous standard.” In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 

680. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, in light of the 

evidence supporting the finding, it is against the clear weight of 

the evidence. See id. Therefore, “[w]hen a foundation for the 

court’s decision exists in the evidence, an appellate court may 

not engage in a reweighing of the evidence.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 

82, ¶ 12.

¶3 The juvenile court found multiple grounds supporting the 

termination of Father’s parental rights. Pursuant to Utah Code 

section 78A-6-507, the finding of a single enumerated ground 

will support the termination of parental rights. See Utah Code 

Ann. § 78A-6-507 (LexisNexis 2012). On appeal, Father does not 

challenge the juvenile court’s determination that he abandoned 

and neglected his child, or that he was an unfit parent as defined 

by Utah Code section 78A-5-507(1). See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-

507(1). Instead, Father limits his appeal to challenging the 

juvenile court’s determination that it was in the child’s best 

interest to terminate his parental rights.

¶4 If the juvenile court determines that there are sufficient 

grounds to terminate parental rights, in order to actually do so, 

the court must next find that the best interest and welfare of the 

child are served by terminating the parent’s parental rights. See 

In re R.A.J., 1999 UT App 329, ¶ 7, 991 P.2d 1118. In conducting 

the best interest analysis, the juvenile court determined that 

Father has an extensive criminal history, and he has been 

incarcerated for the duration of K.C.’s life. Father’s incarceration 

rendered him unable to participate in reunification services with 

K.C. The juvenile court also determined that Father’s extensive
In re K.C.

20150728-CA 3 2016 UT App 5

criminal actions implied a conscious disregard of the obligations 

owed by a parent to a child, leading to the destruction of the 

parent child relationship. Furthermore, Father failed to provide 

emotional support, care, or love to K.C. during the entirety of 

K.C.’s life.

¶5 Conversely, K.C. has been living with his maternal 

grandfather and his wife (Grandparents). K.C. initially lived 

with Grandparents when he was only two weeks old. After K.C. 

was removed from his mother’s custody the first time, he went 

to live with Grandparents again. K.C. was then transitioned to 

his mother’s care while she was in the House of Hope. After the 

second removal, K.C. returned to live with Grandparents. Since 

living with Grandparents, K.C.’s behavioral problems have 

improved, and he has become more affectionate. Grandparents 

wish to adopt K.C. so that they may continue to provide him

with the support, love, and stability that they have provided to 

K.C. throughout his life.

¶6 Father fails to demonstrate that the juvenile court’s 

determination that it is in K.C.’s best interest to terminate 

Father’s parental rights is against the clear weight of the 

evidence. Because “a foundation for the court’s decision exists in 

the evidence,” we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating 

Father’s parental rights. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 

435.