2015 UT App 44

_________________________________________________________

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF A.P., K.P., AND T.P., PERSONS

UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

____________

R.P. AND J.P.,

Appellants,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20140951-CA

Filed February 26, 2015

Eighth District Juvenile Court, Duchesne Department

The Honorable Ryan B. Evershed

Nos. 1017425, 1092487, and 1092725

Christopher M. Ault and Zachary W. Powell,

Attorneys for Appellants

Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys

for Appellee

Dixie A. Jackson, Guardian ad Litem

Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN,

and KATE A. TOOMEY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 R.P. and J.P.(Grandparents) appeal from the juvenile court’s

October 28, 2014 order terminating reunification services to

Grandparents, denying a motion to set aside D.P.’s (Mother)

voluntary relinquishment of parental rights, and denying
In re A.P.

Grandparents’ motion to set aside a stipulation among the parties

and set the matter for trial.

¶2 On January 23, 2013, Grandparents, Mother, and the

Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) entered into an

agreement in which Mother agreed to voluntarily relinquish her

parental rights to her children, and DCFS agreed to offer

reunification services to Grandparents who had been the children’s

primary caregivers. Grandparents argue that the juvenile court

erred in determining that DCFS provided Grandparents with

reasonable services per the terms of that agreement. 

¶3 The juvenile court “has broad discretion in determining

whether DCFS has made reasonable efforts at reunification.” In re

A.C., 2004 UT App 255, ¶ 12, 97 P.3d 706. The reason behind this

discretion is that “[t]he factual situations that give rise to the

termination of parental rights vary greatly; thus, the number,

quality, and array of services that should be provided for

reunification also vary greatly.” Id. ¶ 11.

Additionally, the trial court is in the best position to

evaluate the credibility and competence of those who

testify regarding the services that were provided, the

parent’s level of participation in such services,

whether the services were properly tailored to

remedy the specific problems that led to removal of

the child, and whether the parent successfully

accessed and then utilized such services to remedy

the problem necessitating the removal.

Consequently,determining whether or not DCFS has

provided “reasonable services” to parents requires

trial judges to observe “‘facts [ ]’ . . . relevant to the

application of the law that cannot be adequately

reflected in the record available to appellate courts.” 

Id. ¶ 12 (citations omitted). 

20140951-CA 2 2015 UT App 44 
In re A.P.

¶4 DCFS agreed to provide services to Grandparents pursuant

to an agreement between the parties, despite the fact that both

DCFS and the juvenile court had concerns about the arrangement

due to Grandparents’ extensive history with DCFS. The juvenile

court agreedthe serviceswouldbeprovidedbecause Grandparents

had essentially acted as the children’s parents and the children

were bonded to them. However, because of the juvenile court’s

concerns, the juvenile court was unwilling to grant Grandparents

much leeway to depart from the requirements of the reunification

plan.

¶5 The initial plan required Grandparents to obtain parental

fitness evaluations, visit regularly with the children, attend family

team meetings, cooperate with background checks, clean their

property, and not allow contact between Mother and the children.

Grandparents complied with most of these requirements.

However, the lynchpin of the plan was the parental fitness

evaluation because the results of that evaluation would allow

DCFS and the court to better tailor services to meet the needs of

Grandparents and the children. This was important due to

Grandparents’ previous history with DCFS andthe juvenile court’s

concerns about their ability to parent. The juvenile court

determined that Grandparents failed to adequately cooperate in

obtaining a valid parental fitness evaluation and, in so doing, failed

to cooperate with the most important aspect of the service plan.

¶6 Grandparents were told that they needed to provide open

and honest responses to the evaluation in order to obtain the most

helpful result. The evaluator determined that Grandparents failed

to do this. Specifically, the evaluator found that Grandparents,

especially Grandmother, “engaged in a response styleofdenial and

minimalization,” and that their response style was one of “selfprotection and impression management.” Because of this, the

evaluator was unable to “give any helpful recommendations

regarding improvement of parenting ability.” Grandmother’s

responses particularly concerned the evaluator. Specifically, the

evaluator believed that Grandmother’s efforts to minimize and

20140951-CA 3 2015 UT App 44 
In re A.P.

disregard any mistakes she had made and might make in the future

were “probably rather chronic and enduring in varied aspects of

her life.” As a result, Grandmother “will probably not see the need

to change anything in her life as she feels that things are without

problem and change is not needed.” Based on the evaluator’s

report the juvenile court determined that Grandparents were either

deceptive or lacked any insight into their own potential issues.

¶7 As a result of these issues with the parental fitness

evaluation, the juvenile court concluded that it was impossible to

craft the remaining aspects of the reunification plan needed to

ensure the safety and well-being of the children. Further, the

background check of Grandmother revealed that she had failed to

disclose to either DCFS or the court that she was on federal

probation. She also could not pass a DCFS database check for

relative placement or adoption of the children due to her history of

abuse and neglect. Given the totality of the circumstances, the

juvenile court concluded that DCFS had provided reasonable

services to Grandparents, but Grandparents were unwilling or

unable to meet the goals of the reunification plan. A foundation for

this decision is supported by the record. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82,

¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435 (“When a foundation for the court’s decision

exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not engage in a

reweighing of the evidence.”). We cannot say that the juvenile

court abused its considerable discretion in so concluding. The

juvenile court was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of

witnesses, the needs of the children and Grandparents,

Grandparents’ participation in the services, and most importantly

Grandparents’ ability to successfully access and utilize the services

offered, i.e., their ability or willingness to solve the problems that

led to their extensive history with DCFS and the juvenile court.

¶8 Accordingly, because the juvenile court did not abuse its

discretion in concluding that DCFS provided Grandparents with

reasonable services, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

20140951-CA 4 2015 UT App 44