2013 UT App 234

_________________________________________________________



### T HE 

### U TAH 

### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS

S TATE OF U TAH

, IN THE INTEREST OF D.M., A PERSON UNDER

EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE

____________

M.H.,

Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF U TAH

, Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20130593

‐ CA

Filed September 26, 2013

Third District Juvenile, Tooele Department

The Honorable Mark W. May

No. 1077146

David J. Angerhofer, Attorney for Appellant

John E. Swallow and Carol L.C. Verdoia, Attorneys

for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

Before J UDGES D AVIS

, M C H UGH

, and V OROS

.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 M.H. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental

rights. She asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support

the grounds for terminating her parental rights and the conclusion

that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate her parental

rights.

¶2 “[I]n order to overturn the juvenile court’s decision [to

terminate a person’s parental rights,] ‘the result must be against theIn re D.M.

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 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 only when, in light of the evidence

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

evidence. See id. Further, we give the juvenile court a “‘wide

latitude of discretion as to the judgments arrived at’ based upon

not only the court’s opportunity to judge credibility firsthand, but

also based on the juvenile court judges’ ‘special training,

experience and interest in this field.’” Id. (citations omitted).

Finally, “[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 Mother asserts that there was insufficient evidence to

support the determination that Mother was an unfit parent. The

evidence in the record supports the juvenile court’s determination. 1

Utah Code section 78A

‐ 6

‐ 508(2)(e) states that in making its decision

concerning whether a parent is unfit, the juvenile court shall

consider “whether the parent is incarcerated as a result of a

conviction of a felony, and the sentence is of such length that the

child will be deprived of a normal home for more than one year.”

Utah Code Ann. § 78A

‐ 6

‐ 508(2)(e) (LexisNexis 2012). Testimony

demonstrated that Mother was not scheduled to complete her

sentence until well after that one

‐ year period. Mother argues that

if she completed certain programs, she anticipated being released

1. The court also determined that other grounds supported the

termination of Mother’s parental rights. Mother alleges that there

was insufficient evidence to support those grounds. However,

because the evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination

that Mother was unfit, we do not review these other grounds. See

In re F.C.

, 2003 UT App 397, ¶ 6, 81 P.3d 790 (noting that any single

ground is sufficient to terminate parental rights).

20130593

‐ CA 2013 UT App 234 2In re D.M.

early from prison, and if that was the case she would have spent

just less than one year in prison. Mother presented no supporting

documentary evidence that her sentence would end less than a year

after it began. Furthermore, Mother used methamphetamine a

mere three weeks after D.M. was born. 2 This use of

methamphetamine such a short period after D.M.’s birth is

exacerbated by the fact that Mother has either lost custody or lost

parental rights to ten previous children. Based on the totality of the

evidence, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that Mother

has not yet learned to put the needs of her children above her own.

Thus, evidence in the record supports the juvenile court’s

determination that Mother was unfit. See In re B.R.

, 2007 UT 82,

¶ 12.

¶4 Mother next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to

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

interest of D.M. to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Based upon

Mother’s incarceration, her failure to begin any drug treatment

program, and her failure to alter her behavior after losing custody

or her parental rights to ten previous children, the evidence

supports the finding that Mother was not ready to parent D.M. On

the other hand, D.M.’s foster parents love her, provide for her

needs, have established a bond with her, and wish to adopt her.

These and other facts appearing in the record support the juvenile

court’s determination that it is in D.M.’s best interest to terminate

Mother’s parental rights.

¶5 Affirmed.

2. Mother testified that this was the first time she had used drugs

“in forever.” However, the father of the child testified that he had

used drugs with Mother on at least one other occasion. The juvenile

court also expressed disbelief of Mother’s testimony that she was

caught the one time she used drugs.

20130593

‐ CA 2013 UT App 234 3