2014 UT App 276

_________________________________________________________



### T H E 

### U T A H 

### C O U RT O F 

### A P P E A L S

S TAT E OF U TA H

, I N TH E I N T E RE S T

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

YE ARSOF AG E

. C.A., Appellant,

v. S TAT E OF U TA H

, Appellee.

Per CuriamDeci si on No. 20140862-CA Filed N ov ember 20, 2014

Four th Di stric t Juveni le Court, Americ an For k Depart ment

The Honorable Suchada P. Bazzell e

No. 1076772

EricG. Jac obson, Att or ney for Appellant Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peter son, Atto rneys

for Appellee
Mar tha Pi erce, Guardi an ad Li tem
Before J U

D G E S G RE G O R

Y K. O R M E, J AM E S Z. D AV I S

, AND J. F RE D E RI C V O R

O S J R

.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 C

. A. ( Mo th e r) a ppeals the ter mi nati on of her parental right s

. We affi rm.
¶2 “[I]n or der to o ver turn the juve ni le court’s deci si on [to ter mi nate a person’s parenta l rights,] ‘the result mus t be again st the clear wei ght of the evidenc e or leave the appellate court wi th a fi rmIn re R.A.

and defini te convicti on that a mi stake has been made.’” In re B .R. , 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435 (ci tation omi tte d). We “rev i ew the juve ni le court’s f actual findi ngs based upon the c learly err oneous standard.” In re E.R. , 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680. A finding of fact i s clear ly err oneous only when, i n li ght of the evidenc e supp or tin g the fi ndi ng, i t i s again st the clear wei ght of the evidenc e. See id. Addi tionally, a juve ni le court has broad di screti on reg ardin g judgments based on the juve ni le court’s speci ali zed exper i ence and tr ai ni ng, as well as i ts abi li ty to jud g e cr e d ibi li ty fi rsthand. Id. Fin ally, “[w] hen a foundati on for the court’s deci si on exis ts i n the evidenc e, an appellate co urt may not engage in a reweighing of the ev i dence.” In re B.R. , 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12.

¶3 Mot her assert s that there was i nsu ffi ci ent evidenc e for the juve ni le court to deter mi ne t ha t gr ounds exis ted to justif y ter mi nati on of her parental rights. The juve ni le court found several gr ounds to supp or t ter minati on of Mot her’s parental rights. The 1 evidenc e i n the recor d supp or ts the juve ni le court’s deter minati on that Mot her i s unfi t. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507( 1 )(c ) (Lexi sNexi s 2012). Mot her’s abus e of prescri ption medi cati ons and her i nabi li ty or refusal to atte mpt to remedy her addi ct io ns and other parenting defi ci enci es have render ed her unable to care for her chi ldren. See id. § 78A-6-5 0 8 (2 )( c) (stati ng that habi tual use of contro lled sub stances that render a parent unabl e to care for he r chi ldren i s evi dence of un fi tness).

¶4 After the chi l d re n w e re re m ov e d , re u n i fi c a ti on s e rv i ces were prov i ded to Mot her i n or der to address her addi cti on and

1

. Pu rsuant to Utah Code secti on 78A-6-507, the findi ng of a ny single gr ound for te rmi nati on i s su ffi ci ent to warrant ter mi nati on of parental rights. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1) (Lexi sNexi s 2012); In re F.C. III

, 2003 UT App 397, ¶ 6, 81 P.3d 790. As a result, i f there i s suffi ci ent evidenc e to supp or t any o f t he gr ounds for ter mi nati on found by the juve ni le court, the ter minati on of Mot her’s rights i s appropriate.

20140862-CA 2 2014 UT App 276In re R.A.

parenting i ssu es; however , Mot her fai led to take advantag e of those services and, i n so doin g, fai led to demonstrate that she was capabl e of cari ng for her chi ldren. Mot her was required to address her addi cti on i ssu es by completi ng sub stance abus e tr eatment. However , Mot her was uns ucc essf ully di sch arg ed from multi ple sub stance abus e faci li ties , and i n at lea st one case, the prim ary
reason for her di smissal from the prog ram was her fai lure to i nternalize parenting advic e that was conti nually c om m u n i cated to her. Mother also fai led to complete domesti c violence couns eli ng, atte ndi ng only one of twenty-seven clas ses. Evidence also demonstrat e d that despi te receiving ext ensi ve assi stance t o assi st Mot her i n her parenting ski lls, sh e fai led to i nternalize the i nformation prov i ded. Furt her, as of the date of tr i al Mot her had no abi li ty to supp or t herself and had no stable housing. The combined effect of thi s evidenc e demonstrate s that Mot her i s currently unfi t to parent her chi ldren and i s not li kely to be i n a posi tion to adequately care for he r ch ildr en for a sub stanti al period of tim e. Accordi ngly, becau se a foundati on for the juve ni le court’s deci si on exis ts i n the evidenc e, we affi rm. See In re B.R. , 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12. 2

¶5 Affi rmed.

2. Before a court may ter minate the parental rights of an i ndi vidu al, the court mus t fi nd not only that there are gr ounds to supp or t the t e rmi nati on, but also that i t i s i n the chi ld’s best i ntere st. See In r e R.A.J. , 1999 UT App 329, ¶ 7, 991 P.2d 1118. Mot her does not contest the juve ni le court’s findings concerni ng the best intere sts of the chi ldren; accordi ngly, we do not address the i ssu e.

20140862-CA 3 2014 UT App 276