2018 UT App 17

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF M.R., A.R.C., AND N.R.,

PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

F.C.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Opinion

No. 20170211-CA

Filed February 1, 2018

Third District Juvenile Court, Silver Summit Department

The Honorable Elizabeth M. Knight

No. 1099635

Asa E. Kelley, Attorney for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M. 

Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

Before JUDGES DAVID N. MORTENSEN, JILL M. POHLMAN, and 

DIANA HAGEN.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 F.C. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental 

rights. Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to 

support the juvenile court’s determination that the Division of 

Child and Family Services (DCFS) made reasonable efforts to 

provide adequate reunification services.

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

terminate a person’s parental rights,] ‘the result must be against 

the clear weight of the evidence or leave the appellate court with 
In re M.R.

20170211-CA 2 2018 UT App 17

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.2d 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. In regard to claims 

concerning the adequacy of reunification services, the juvenile 

court “has broad discretion in determining whether DCFS had

made reasonable efforts at reunification.” In re A.C., 2004 UT 

App 255, ¶ 12, 97 P.3d 706. The reason for 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 those problems. 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) (alteration and omission in original).

¶3 Mother’s primary argument is that she was denied 

reasonable accommodations under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (the ADA). See 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (2012). 
In re M.R.

20170211-CA 3 2018 UT App 17

However, Mother has failed to demonstrate that she preserved 

such a claim by requesting an accommodation. “[I]n order to 

preserve an issue for appeal, the issue must be presented to the 

trial court in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to 

rule on that issue.” 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, 

¶ 51, 99 P.3d 801 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); 

see also In re K.C., 2015 UT 92, ¶ 29, 362 P.2d 1248 (indicating that 

the juvenile court had no obligation to examine whether 

reasonable accommodations were made under the ADA until 

the parent actually “invoked” the ADA). Mother fails to 

demonstrate that she ever indicated to the juvenile court that she 

believed that the services offered to her did not adequately 

account for her disability, or that she otherwise objected to the 

services she was receiving. Accordingly, because Mother did not 

preserve the issue, and has not otherwise argued that an 

exception to the preservation rule applies in this case, we do not 

address the issue on appeal.

¶4 In regard to her broader argument, Mother fails to 

demonstrate that the juvenile court abused its discretion in 

finding that DCFS made reasonable efforts at reunification.1 The 

evidence in the record supports the juvenile court’s decision. For 

example, DCFS arranged for numerous evaluations to assist it in 

determining the services Mother needed, including three 

separate psychological evaluations,2 drug tests, therapy, and 

 

1. Services were eventually terminated by the juvenile court after 

several “aggravating circumstances” occurred causing the court 

to find that reunification services were no longer appropriate. 

Mother did not raise any issue concerning the juvenile court’s 

decision to terminate services.

2. The psychological evaluators diagnosed Mother with an 

“intellectual disability” that would make it difficult for her to 

parent because Mother had an inability to adapt the things she 

(continued...)
In re M.R.

20170211-CA 4 2018 UT App 17

approximately seventy sessions of weekly Individualized Parent 

Child Interactive Therapy with the use of an interpreter. The 

record demonstrates that the services Mother received were 

extensive and meant to address Mother’s parenting deficiencies 

from several different directions. Mother fails to adequately 

explain how the extensive services she received were 

unreasonable. Further, Mother fails to identify any objections she 

made to the juvenile court concerning the services she was 

receiving or any requests for additional services that she 

believed would have assisted her in regaining custody of her 

children. Accordingly, because evidence in the record supports 

the juvenile court’s determination, and because of Mother’s 

failure to identify any reasonable services that DCFS failed to 

offer her, she has failed to demonstrate that the juvenile court 

abused its discretion in finding that DCFS provided reasonable 

services to Mother.

¶5 Affirmed.

 

(...continued)

was being taught to new situations. Accordingly, the evaluators 

concluded that Mother would likely not benefit from services.