2014 UT App 276 

_________________________________________________________

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF R.A., A.A. AND S.A., PERSONS

UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

C.A.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20140862-CA

Filed November 20, 2014

Fourth District Juvenile Court, American Fork Department

The Honorable Suchada P. Bazzelle

No. 1076772

Eric G. Jacobson, Attorney for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys

for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, JAMES Z. DAVIS, AND

J. FREDERIC VOROS JR.

PER CURIAM:

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

We affirm.

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

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

clear weight of the evidence orleave the appellate court with a firm
In re R.A.

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.3d 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. Additionally, a juvenile court has broad discretion

regarding judgments based on the juvenile court’s specialized

experience and training, as well as its ability to judge credibility

firsthand. Id. Finally, “[w]hen a foundation for the court’s decision

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

reweighing of the evidence.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12.

¶3 Mother asserts that there was insufficient evidence for the

juvenile court to determine that grounds existed to justify

termination of her parental rights. The juvenile court found several

grounds to support termination of Mother’s parental rights. The 1

evidence in the record supports the juvenile court’s determination

that Mother is unfit. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1)(c)

(LexisNexis 2012). Mother’s abuse of prescription medications and

her inability or refusal to attempt to remedy her addictions and

other parenting deficiencies have rendered her unable to care for

her children. See id. § 78A-6-508(2)(c) (stating that habitual use of

controlled substances that render a parent unable to care for her

children is evidence of unfitness).

¶4 Afterthe childrenwere removed,reunificationservices were

provided to Mother in order to address her addiction and

1. Pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-6-507, the finding of any

single ground for termination is sufficient to warrant termination

of parental rights. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1) (LexisNexis

2012); In re F.C. III, 2003 UT App 397, ¶ 6, 81 P.3d 790. As a result,

if there is sufficient evidence to support any of the grounds for

termination found by the juvenile court, the termination of

Mother’s rights is appropriate.

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

parenting issues; however, Mother failed to take advantage of

those services and, in so doing, failed to demonstrate that she was

capable of caring for her children. Mother was required to address

her addiction issues by completing substance abuse treatment.

However, Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from multiple

substance abuse facilities, and in at least one case, the primary

reason for her dismissal from the program was her failure to

internalize parenting advice that was continuallycommunicated to

her. Mother also failed to complete domestic violence counseling,

attending only one of twenty-seven classes. Evidence also

demonstrated that despite receiving extensive assistance to assist

Mother in her parenting skills, she failed to internalize the

information provided. Further, as of the date of trial Mother had no

ability to support herself and had no stable housing. The combined

effect of this evidence demonstrates that Mother is currently unfit

to parent her children and is not likely to be in a position to

adequately care for her children for a substantial period of time.

Accordingly, because a foundation for the juvenile court’s decision

exists in the evidence, we affirm. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12. 2

¶5 Affirmed.

2. Before a court may terminate the parental rights of an individual,

the court must find not only that there are grounds to support the

termination, but also that it is in the child’s best interest. See In re

R.A.J., 1999 UT App 329, ¶ 7, 991 P.2d 1118. Mother does not

contest the juvenile court’s findings concerning the best interests of

the children; accordingly, we do not address the issue.

20140862-CA 3 2014 UT App 276