2016 UT App 191

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF S.A.,

A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

S.A.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20160411-CA

Filed September 9, 2016

Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Kimberly K. Hornak

No. 1125253

Colleen K. Coebergh, Attorney for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys

for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

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

STEPHEN L. ROTH.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 S.A. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s disposition order 

in a protective supervision case.1 Following oral arguments on 

 

1. The State’s petition sought an adjudication that the child was 

within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as an abused, 

neglected, or dependent child and an order for protective 

supervision services in the home of the parents. The disposition 

(continued...)
In re S.A.

20160411-CA 2 2016 UT App 191

Father’s petition and the State’s and Guardian ad Litem’s

responses, this court requested supplemental briefing on the 

following issue:

Whether the requirement in the disposition order 

that Father submit to a domestic violence 

assessment and follow its recommendation is a 

“reasonable condition to be complied with” by 

Father under Utah Code section 78A-6-117(2)(p)(i), 

where the child is within the juvenile court’s 

jurisdiction as a dependent child under Utah Code 

section 78A-6-103.

Father, the State, and the Guardian ad Litem each filed the 

requested memoranda. Father also moved the court to allow full 

briefing under rule 58(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Based upon a review of the supplemental briefing, 

this court determines that further briefing will not materially aid 

the dispositional process and denies the motion for full briefing.

¶2 The State’s petition for protective supervision sought 

(1) an adjudication that the child is an abused, neglected, or 

dependent child within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, 

and (2) an order of “protective supervision services or other 

appropriate services over the child in the home of the parents.” 

Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-105(33) (LexisNexis Supp. 2016) 

(defining protective supervision as “a legal status created by 

court order following an adjudication on the ground of abuse, 

 

(...continued)

order in this case is final and appealable because it granted all of 

the relief requested in the State’s petition for protective 

supervision. See In re K.F., 2009 UT 4, ¶ 36, 201 P.3d 985 (“To be 

final, a juvenile court order must ‘end[] the current juvenile 

proceedings, leaving no question open for further judicial 

action.’”(alteration in original)(citation omitted)).
In re S.A.

20160411-CA 3 2016 UT App 191

neglect, or dependency, whereby the minor is permitted to 

remain in the minor’s home, and supervision and assistance to 

correct” that situation is provided by an agency designated by 

the court). The juvenile court found that the facts did not 

establish abuse or neglect but entered an adjudication order 

stating that the child was dependent as to Father.2 A dependent 

child includes a child “who is . . . without proper care through 

no fault of the child’s parent.” Id. § 78A-6-105(11).

¶3 At a disposition hearing held after an adjudication of a 

child as abused, neglected, or dependent, and therefore within 

the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the court may enter an 

order of “protective supervision,” id. § 78A-6-312(1)(c)(i), or 

make “any of the dispositions described in Section 78A-6-117,”

id. § 78A-6-312(1)(a). Section 78A-6-117(2)(p)(i), states,

In support of a decree under Section 78A-6-103, the 

court may order reasonable conditions to be complied 

with by a minor’s parents or guardian, a minor, a 

minor’s custodian, or any other person who has 

been made a party to the proceedings. Conditions 

may include:

(A)parent-time by the parents or one parent;

(B) restrictions on the minor’s associates;

(C)restrictions on the minor’s occupation 

and other activities; and

(D)requirements to be observed by the parents or 

custodian.

Id. § 78A-6-117(2)(p)(i) (emphases added).

 

2. After the child’s mother admitted the allegations of the State’s 

petition, the juvenile court entered an adjudication that the child 

was neglected by the mother. Nothing in this decision shall be 

construed as altering any orders from the juvenile court directed 

to the child’s mother, who is not a party to this appeal.
In re S.A.

20160411-CA 4 2016 UT App 191

¶4 The initial service plan that the Division of Child and 

Family Services drafted included requirements that Father 

undergo a mental health assessment, a domestic violence 

assessment, and a substance abuse assessment. Father objected 

to these requirements “as being beyond the scope of requirements 

to be observed by a non-offending parent.” The juvenile court 

sustained Father’s objection to the requirements for substance 

abuse and mental health assessments, but it overruled the 

objection to the directive that Father complete a domestic violence 

assessment and comply with any recommendations. Citing its 

findings from the earlier adjudication hearing, the juvenile court 

stated,

I made a specific finding in paragraph 14 

that there was a concern about [the child’s]

statement that he sees his mom and dad fighting a 

lot, and sometimes he sees them hit each other. The 

Court finds the parents have been arguing in the 

home. Parents have hit each other on occasion in 

the presence of [the child]; but under the statute it 

does not rise to the level of neglect.

So I believe under that finding and under 

Section 117 and the specific paragraph cited, 

[(2)(p)(i)] that I can order reasonable conditions to 

be complied with by [the child’s] father, which 

would be requirements to be observed by the 

parent or custodian under [(2)(p)(i)(D)]. . . . So I 

think it would be appropriate to order that the 

father . . . follow through with a domestic violence 

assessment and follow through with any 

recommendations.

¶5 Father appeals this disposition order, claiming that the 

juvenile court erred in requiring him to complete a domestic 

violence assessment and comply with its recommendations 

because there was no neglect adjudication as to Father and the 
In re S.A.

20160411-CA 5 2016 UT App 191

juvenile court found no fault by Father. The juvenile court’s 

adjudication that the child was dependent as to Father is not 

challenged on appeal. That dependency adjudication rests, in 

part, upon the factual finding that the parents hit each other in 

the child’s presence. That factual finding also is not challenged 

on appeal. Because of the factually intense nature of the juvenile 

court’s inquiry, we afford the juvenile court’s decision “a high 

degree of deference.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435. 

Thus, we do not overturn the juvenile court’s decision unless “it 

either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the 

facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of 

the evidence.” Id. “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.

¶6 The adjudication of a child as dependent, neglected, or 

abused forms the basis for juvenile court jurisdiction, thereby 

making all of the dispositional options listed in section 78A-6-

117 available to that court. See In re M.J., 2011 UT App 398, ¶ 49, 

266 P.3d 850.

Once the juvenile court has adjudicated the child as 

falling under its jurisdiction, it has ongoing 

jurisdiction over that child. See Utah Code Ann. 

§ 78A-6-304(1)[LexisNexis 2012]; In re K.F., 2009 UT 

4, ¶¶ 22-24, 201 P.3d 985. With this continuing 

jurisdiction, the court has myriad dispositional 

choices available to it, see Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-

117(2)[LexisNexis Supp. 2015], from the minimally 

intrusive option of protective supervision, see id.

§ 78A-6-117(2)(a)(i), to the more drastic remedy of 

removal, see id. § 78A-6-117(2)(c)(i)(A).

Id. From the time of the adjudication of the child as within 

juvenile court jurisdiction, the court is “free to apply any of the 

dispositional options available to it.” Id. ¶ 50.
In re S.A.

20160411-CA 6 2016 UT App 191

¶7 Under section 78A-6-117(2), the juvenile court may impose 

conditions on a parent so long as the conditions are “reasonable.”

See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-117(2)(p)(i) (LexisNexis Supp. 2016). 

The condition that Father complete a domestic violence 

assessment and comply with any recommendations is reasonable 

under the circumstances of this case. First, the condition is 

reasonably related to the juvenile court’s factual finding that 

“the parents have hit each other on occasion in the presence of 

[the child].” Second, the condition is proportionate to the 

concern raised by that finding. Finally, assessing and addressing 

any potential for domestic violence is reasonably calculated to 

serve the best interest of the child.

¶8 Because “a foundation for the court’s decision exists in the 

evidence,” we affirm the juvenile court’s disposition order. In re 

B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12.