2015 UT App 85

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF Z.V., A.V., AND K.V.,

PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

Z.V.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20141170-CA

Filed April 9, 2015

Second District Juvenile Court, Ogden Department

The Honorable Sherene T. Dillon

No. 1052053

Jason B. Richards, Attorney for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys

for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, JOHN A. PEARCE, and 

KATE A. TOOMEY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Z.V. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

terminating his parental rights in his three children. We affirm.

¶2 Father’s children were removed from their mother for the 

second time in March 2014. Father was incarcerated at the time.

A disposition hearing was held for Father on May 20, 2014. At 

that hearing, the juvenile court ordered that no reunification 

services would be provided to Father, because he had failed to 
In re Z.V.

participate in services in the prior case with the children and 

because of the length of his sentence. Father acknowledged that 

his expected release date would not permit him to regain his 

children within the statutory time limits. He did not request 

services, nor did he object to the juvenile court’s order denying 

services or the rationale for the denial.

¶3 With no services provided to either parent, the Division of 

Child and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition to terminate 

parental rights. Even before the petition was filed, the juvenile 

court scheduled the first pretrial hearing on the expected petition 

at Father’s disposition hearing. The first pretrial hearing was 

held less than thirty days after the disposition hearing.

¶4 The trial on the petition was held over two days. In 

closing argument, Father asserted for the first time that the

juvenile court erred in not ordering reunification services,

because the juvenile court failed to make a statutorily required

determination to support its decision. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A6-312(24)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2014) (providing that “[i]f a 

parent is incarcerated . . . , the court shall order reasonable 

services unless it determines that those services would be 

detrimental to the minor”). With the issue raised at that time, the 

juvenile court included the required determination in its 

termination order.

¶5 On appeal, Father argues that the termination of his 

parental rights should be reversed and that he should receive 

reunification services because the juvenile court did not make 

the statutorily required determination that services would be 

detrimental to the children. See id. Father did not request services 

or raise the issue at the May 20 hearing. The first time he 

asserted the issue of the required determination was at trial. The 

juvenile court then addressed the asserted error and included 

extensive findings in the termination order. The juvenile court 

corrected the deficiency noted by Father at the earliest 

20141170-CA 2 2015 UT App 85
In re Z.V.

opportunity after the issue was raised. Contrary to Father’s 

assertion, the juvenile court made the required statutory 

determination that providing services to him while incarcerated 

would be detrimental to the children.

¶6 Father also asserts that the juvenile court erred because it 

did not establish a permanency goal at the disposition hearing 

and because the court did not hold a separate permanency 

hearing. To the extent there was any error, these issues are moot

because there is no relief available that would affect Father’s 

rights. See Towner v. Ridgway, 2012 UT App 35, ¶ 6, 272 P.3d 765. 

The permanency determination and hearing requirements were 

superseded by the trial on the petition to terminate parental 

rights. The final order in this case has been entered, and any 

intermediate goal or hearing would have no effect on the 

outcome at this point.

¶7 Furthermore, there is no requirement for a separate 

permanency hearing in the circumstances here. If no 

reunification services are ordered, a permanency hearing must

typically be held within thirty days after the disposition hearing. 

See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-314(1)(b). However, if a termination 

petition is filed before the permanency hearing is held, the court 

may consolidate the permanency hearing and termination trial. 

Id. § 78A-6-314(13)(a). In this case, the termination petition was 

filed before a permanency hearing was scheduled and, 

accordingly, the proceedings were consolidated into the 

termination trial.

¶8 Father also disputes that termination of his parental rights 

was in the children’s best interests because they were not placed 

with his sister (Aunt). There was conflicting testimony about 

whether Aunt was an appropriate kinship placement at a point 

earlier in the proceedings when kinship placements have some 

preference. Regardless of Aunt’s potential as a placement in the 

early stages of this case, however, the matter of a kinship 

20141170-CA 3 2015 UT App 85
In re Z.V.

placement has no relevance to the ultimate decision regarding 

termination of parental rights after trial. See In re W.P.O., 2004 

UT App 451, ¶ 10, 104 P.3d 662 (stating that “nothing in the plain 

language of the [Termination of Parental Rights Act] requires a 

juvenile court to consider possible kinship placements when 

deciding whether termination is in the best interests of the 

child”).

¶9 The two considerations for terminating parental rights are 

whether a parent is unfit or incompetent and, if so, whether 

termination would be in the child’s best interests. See Utah Code 

Ann. § 78A-6-503(12) (LexisNexis Supp. 2014). In evaluating the 

best interests of a child, a court must consider the physical, 

mental, and emotional needs of the child. In re J.D., 2011 UT App 

184, ¶¶ 14–16, 257 P.3d 1062. The children here were together in 

a stable placement that was providing for their needs. All three 

were thriving. The evidence supported that termination was in 

their best interests to permit them to be adopted into a stable and 

loving home. 

¶10 Affirmed.

20141170-CA 4 2015 UT App 85