2015 UT App 44

_________________________________________________________



### T H E 

### U TA H 

### C O U RT O F 

### A P P E A L S

S TAT E OF U TAH

, I N TH E I NT E RE S T

OF A.P., K.P., AND T.P., P E RS O N S UND E R E I G HT E E N

YE ARSOF AG E

.

____________ R.P. AND J.P., Appellants,

v. S TAT E OF U TAH

, Appellee.

Per CuriamDeci si on No. 20140951-CA Filed February 26, 2015

Ei ghth Di stric t Juveni le Court, Duchesne D epart ment

The Honorable Ryan B. Ev ershed Nos. 1017425, 1092487, and 1092725

Chris topher M. Ault and Zachary W. Powell,

Att or neys for Appellants Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peter son, Atto rneys

for Appellee
Di xie A. Jac kson, Guardi an ad Li tem
Before J UD G E S S T E P H E N L. R OT H , M I C H E L E M. C H RI S T I AN S E N , and K AT E A. T O OM E Y

.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 R.P. and J.P. ( G ran d p a re n ts ) a p peal from the juve ni le court’s October 28, 2 0 1 4 or der ter minati ng reuni fi cati on services to Grandparents, denyi ng a mo t i on to set asi de D.P.’s (Mot her)

vo luntary relinqu i shm ent of parental rights, and d e ny ingIn re A.P.

Grandparents’ motion to set asi de a sti pulati on among the parties and set the matter for t rial.

¶2 On January 23, 2013, Grandparents, Mot he r, and the Department of Chi ld and Fami ly Ser vic es (D CFS ) ent ered into an agr eement i n whi ch Mot her agr eed to vo lun t a r ily relinqu i sh her parental rights to her chi ldren, and DCFS agr ee d to offer

reun i fi c ation services to Grandparents who had been the chi ldren’s prim ary caregivers. Grandparents arg ue that the juve ni le court
err ed i n deter mining that DCFS prov i ded Grandparen t s wi th reasonable services per t he ter ms of that agr eement.
¶3 The juve ni le co ur t “has broad di screti on in deter mining whether DCFS has made reasonable efforts at reuni fi cati on.” In re A.C. , 2004 U T App 255, ¶ 12, 97 P.3d 706. The reason behind thi s di screti on i s that “[t]he fa ct ual si tuations that give ris e to the ter minati on of parental rights var y gr eatly; thus, the numb er, quali ty, and arr ay of serv ice s that should be prov i ded for reuni fi cati on also var y gr eatly.” Id. ¶ 11.

Addi tionally, the tri al court is in the b est posi tion to evaluate the credibi li ty and competence of those who testif y reg ardin g the services that were prov i ded, the parent’ s level of partici pation in such services, whether the services were proper ly tailor ed to remedy t he spec i fi c problems thatled to r emoval o f the chi ld, and whether the parent suc cess fully

acces sed a nd t he n uti li zed such services to remedy t h e p r o b l e m n e c e s s i t a t i n g t h e r e m o v a l

. Conse qu e n tly, d e ter mining whether or not DCFS has prov i ded “reasonable services ” to parents requires tr i al judges to observe “‘facts [ ]’

. . . relev ant to the appli cat i on of the law that cannot be adequately reflected in the recor d availab le to appellate courts.”

Id. ¶ 12 (ci tations omi tte d).

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

¶4 DCFS agr eed to prov i de services to Grandparents pursuant to an agr eement between the p a rt i es, despi te the fact that both DCFS and the juve ni le court had concerns about the arr angement due to Grandparents’ ext ensi ve hi stor y wi th DCFS. The juve ni le court agr eed the s e rv i c e s w ou l d b e p ro vi d e d becau se Grandparents had essenti ally act e d a s the chi ldren’s parents and the chi ldren

were bonded to them. However , because of the juve ni le court’s concerns, the juvenile c ourtwas u nwi lling to gr ant Grandparents

much leeway to depart from the requirements of the reuni fi cati on plan.

¶5 The i ni tial plan required Grandpar e nt s to obtain parental fi tness evaluations, vis i t reg ularly wi th the chi ldren, atte nd fami ly t e am meetin gs, cooper ate wi th backgro und chec ks, clean the ir proper ty, and not allow contact between Mot her and the chi ldren. Grandparents compli ed wi th most of these requiremen ts. Howe v e r , t he lynchpin of the plan was the parental fi tness evaluation becau se the results of that evaluation would allow DCFS and the court to better t a ilor services to meet the needs of Grandparents and the chi ldren. Thi s was i mport a nt due to Grandparents’ prev i ous hi stor y wi th D C FS a n d the juve ni le court’s

concerns about their abi li ty to pare nt

. Th e juve ni le court deter mined that Grandpar e nt s fai led to adequately cooper ate in obtaining a valid parental fi tness evaluation and, in so doin g, fai led to coo perat e wi th the most imp or tant aspect of the serv i ce plan.

¶6 Grandparents were told that they needed to prov i de open and honest responses to the evaluation in or der to obtain the most helpfu l result. The evaluato r deter mined that Grandparents fai led to do thi s. Speci fi cally, the evaluato r found that Grandparents,

e s p eci ally Grandmother, “engaged in a response styl e of d e n i a l a n d mini mali zation,” and that their response style was one of “selfprot ecti on and i mpressi on management.” Becaus e of thi s, the evaluato r was unable to “give any helpfu l recommendati ons reg ardin g i mprov ement of parenting abi li ty.” Grandmother’ s responses particu larly concerne d the evaluato r. Speci fi cally, the evaluato r beli eved that Gran d mo ther’ s efforts to mini mi ze and

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

di sregar d any mi stakes she had made and mi ght make in the future

were “probably rat her chronic a nd e nduring in var i ed aspects of her li fe.” As a result, Grandmother “wi ll probably not see the need to change anythin g in her l ife a s she feels that thi ngs are wi thout problem and change i s not needed.” B a se d on the evaluato r’s

re p or t the ju ve n i le court deter mined that Grandparents were ei ther decepti ve o r lacked any ins i ght into their own potential i ssu es.
¶7 As a result of these i ssu es wit h t he parental fi tness evaluation, the juve ni le court conclu ded that i t was i mpossi ble to craft the remain i ng aspects of the reuni fi cati on plan needed to
ensure the safety and well-b ei ng of th e ch ildr en. Furt her, the backgro und chec k of Grandmother rev ealed that she had fai led to d isc l ose to ei ther DCFS or the court that she was on feder a l probat i on. S he also could not pass a DCFS database chec k for relat i ve placemen t or adoption of the chi ldren due to her hi stor y of abus e and neglect. Gi v e n the tot ali ty of the ci rcums tances, the juve ni le court conclu d ed that DCFS had prov i ded reasonable services to Grandparents, but Grandparents were unw i lling or unabl e to meet the goals of the reuni fi cati on plan. A foundati on for thi s deci si on i s supp or ted by the recor d. See In re B.R. , 2007 UT 82, ¶ 1 2, 171 P.3d 435 ( “When a foundati on for the court’s deci si on exis ts i n the evidenc e, an a p p ellate court may not engage in a reweighing of the evidenc e.”). We canno t sa y that the juve ni le court abus ed i ts consi derable di screti on in so co nc l uding. The juve ni le court was i n the best posi tion to evaluate the credibi li ty of wi tnesses, the ne eds of the chi ldren and Grandparents, Grandparents’ partici pation in the services, and most i mport antly Grandparents’ abi li ty to suc cess fully acces s and uti li ze the services offered, i.e., thei r abi li ty o r wi llingness to solve the problems t hat led to t hei r ex tensi ve his tor y wi th DCFS and the juvenile c ourt

. ¶8 A ccor dingly, becau se the juve ni le court di d not abus e i ts di screti on in conclu ding that DCFS prov i ded Grandparents with reasonable services, we affi rm the j udgment of the j uveni le court.

20140951-CA 4 2015 UT App 44