2013 UT App 127

_________________________________________________________



### T HE 

### U TAH 

### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS

S TATE OF U TAH

, IN THE INTEREST OF R.D., A PERSON UNDER

EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE

.

B.H.,

Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF U TAH

, Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20130270

‐ CA

Filed May 16, 2013

Eighth District Juvenile, Vernal Department

The Honorable Larry A. Steele

No. 1054310

Colleen K. Coebergh, Attorney for Appellant

John E. Swallow and John M. Peterson, Attorneys

for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

Before J UDGES O RME

, M C H UGH

, and R OTH

.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 B.H. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating

her parental rights in R.D. We affirm.

¶2 Mother first asserts that the juvenile court committed plain

error when it permitted the father’s (Father) counsel to represent

Father when counsel had a conflict of interest. To demonstrate

plain error, a party must show that an error exists, that the error

should have been obvious to the court, and that there is aIn re R.D.

20130270

‐ CA 2013 UT App 127 2 reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the

case. State v. Dean

, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 15, 95 P.3d 276. Given that there

is nothing in the record regarding counsel’s alleged job change,

notice to clients, or waiver of the conflict by Father, Mother cannot

show that any alleged conflict of interest would have been obvious

to the juvenile court. There is nothing to indicate that the juvenile

court knew of the circumstances of counsel’s continued

representation of Father. Accordingly, Mother cannot establish

plain error.

¶3 Mother also argues that there was insufficient evidence to

support the termination of her parental rights. A juvenile court’s

findings of fact will not be overturned unless they are clearly

erroneous. 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. Id. In reviewing a juvenile court’s order, this court “will

not disturb the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions unless the

evidence clearly preponderates against the findings as made or the

court has abused its discretion.” In re R.A.J.

, 1999 UT App 329, ¶ 6,

991 P.2d 1118. “When a foundation for the [juvenile] 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, 171

P.3d 435.

¶4 Additionally, pursuant to Utah Code section 78A

‐ 6

‐ 507, the

finding of any single ground is sufficient to warrant termination of

parental rights. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A

‐ 6

‐ 507(1) (LexisNexis

2012) (providing that the court may terminate parental rights if it

finds any one of grounds listed); In re F.C. III

, 2003 UT App 397,

¶ 6, 81 P.3d 790 (noting that any single ground is sufficient to

terminate parental rights). As a result, if there is sufficient evidence

to support any one of the grounds for termination found by the

juvenile court, the termination of Mother’s rights is appropriate.

¶5 There is sufficient evidence to support that Mother was an

unfit parent. She admittedly continued to use methamphetamineIn re R.D.

20130270

‐ CA 2013 UT App 127 3 from the time R.D. was initially removed from her care in June 2011

until he was taken back into custody by the Division of Child and

Family Services (DCFS) in March 2012. Rather than participating in

services to work toward competency when she had the

opportunity, Mother absconded with R.D. in September 2011 after

learning that DCFS had a warrant to take him back into custody.

After leaving the state with R.D., Mother continued her drug use,

remained unemployed, and bounced around living situations with

no permanent housing of her own. As a result of Mother’s unstable

lifestyle, R.D. had no continuity or security and was in poor

physical and emotional condition when DCFS finally located and

regained physical custody of him. Accordingly, the evidence in the

record supports the juvenile court’s finding that Mother was unfit

based on her drug use and instability, thereby justifying the

termination of her parental rights. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A

‐ 6

‐ 507(1)(c) (providing for termination of parental rights if a parent is

unfit).

¶6 Mother also asserts that the juvenile court improperly

weighed her present ability to parent. There is abundant evidence

in the record demonstrating Mother’s long–term drug use,

instability, dysfunctional relationship with Father, unemployment,

and failure to properly care for R.D. Mother argues that her efforts

to rehabilitate herself during her seven months in jail are sufficient

to overcome her extensive history of addiction and instability

detrimental to R.D. In essence, Mother seeks to have this court

reweigh the evidence before the juvenile court. However, because

there is a foundation in the evidence to support the juvenile court’s

decision, we will not reweigh the evidence. See In re B.R.

, 2007 UT

82, ¶ 12.

¶7 Affirmed.