2013 UT App 126

_________________________________________________________



### T HE 

### U TAH 

### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS

S TATE OF U TAH

, I N THE I NTEREST OF K.K. AND K.K.,

PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE

.

R.W.K.,

Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF U TAH

, Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20120868

‐ CA

Filed May 16, 2013

Fourth District Juvenile, American Fork Department

The Honorable Scott N. Johansen

No. 142957

Scott E. Williams, Attorney for Appellant

John E. Swallow and John M. Peterson, Attorneys

for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

Before J UDGES O RME

, D AVIS

, A ND M C H UGH

.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 R.W.K. (Father) appeals the September 27, 2012 order

terminating his parental rights. We affirm.

¶2 Father asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support

the juvenile court’s determination that there were adequate

grounds to terminate his parental rights under Utah Code section

78

‐ 6

‐ 507 given his recent efforts to cure the issues which causedIn re K.K. and K.K.

20120868

‐ CA 2013 UT App 126 2 K.K. and K.K. (children) to be in an out of home placement. In

order to overturn the juvenile court’s decision as to the sufficiency

of the evidence, “[t]he result must be against the clear weight of the

evidence or leave the appellate court with a firm and definite

conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re B.R.

, 2007 UT 82,

¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435. The juvenile court is in the best position to

weigh conflicting testimony, to assess credibility, and from such

determinations, render findings of fact. See In re L.M.

, 2001 UT App

314, ¶¶ 10

‐ 12, 37 P.3d 1188. 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.

Furthermore, we give the juvenile court a “‘wide latitude of

discretion as to the judgments arrived at’ based upon not only the

court’s opportunity to judge credibility firsthand, but also based on

the juvenile court judges’ ‘special training, experience and interest

in this field.’” 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 The juvenile court determined that there were several

grounds supporting the termination of Father’s parental rights.

Pursuant to Utah Code section 78A

‐ 6

‐ 507, the finding of a single

ground for the termination of parental rights enumerated in section

78A

‐ 6

‐ 507 is sufficient to warrant the termination of parental rights.

See Utah Code Ann. § 78A

‐ 6

‐ 507(1) (LexisNexis 2012). 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 Father’s

parental rights is appropriate. See id.

¶4 There is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s

determination that Father neglected his children. Father has an

extensive history of substance abuse. Although Father asserts that

he made substantial efforts to cure the issues which led to theIn re K.K. and K.K.

1. If there are sufficient grounds to terminate parental rights, in

order to actually do so, “the court must [next] find that the best

interests and welfare of the child are served by terminating the

parents’ parental rights.” In re R.A.J.

, 1999 UT App 329, ¶ 7, 991

P.2d 1118. Although Father does not assert that the juvenile court

erred by concluding that it was in the children’s best interest to

terminate his parental rights, we note that the record also fully

supports the juvenile court’s determination that it was in the

children’s best interest to terminate Father’s parental rights.

20120868

‐ CA 2013 UT App 126 3 children’s out of home placement, a parent’s claim of present

parental fitness must be considered in light of the parent’s past

conduct. See In re B.R.

, 2007 UT 82, ¶ 14. Recent rehabilitative

efforts may not overcome a lengthy history of substance abuse and

neglect of a child. See id. The juvenile court determined that Father

neglected his children by reason of his excessive use of intoxicating

liquors, controlled substances, or dangerous drugs which rendered

him unable to care for his children. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A

‐ 6

‐ 508(2). The juvenile court determined that Father’s substance abuse

spanned significant portions of the children’s lives and that such

abuse substantially harmed the children. The juvenile court

determined that although Father recently made progress with his

substance abuse, he continues to relapse when he is under stress

and he does not accept responsibility for it. The record supports the

juvenile court’s determination that Father neglected his children,

thereby justifying the termination of his parental rights. See id.

§ 78A

‐ 6

‐ 507(1)(b). 1

¶5 Father next asserts that rules 55 and 58 of the Utah Rules of

Appellate Procedure unconstitutionally deny his right to a

meaningful appeal by permitting appellate review absent full

briefing. The Utah Supreme Court has resolved this issue and

determined that an appellate court may constitutionally render a

decision on the merits with only a presentation of the issues along

with an appellate court’s independent examination of the record.

See In re B.A.P., 2006 UT 68, ¶ 20, 148 P.3d 934.In re K.K. and K.K.

20120868

‐ CA 2013 UT App 126 4 ¶6 This court has reviewed the petition on appeal and the

record. The record supports the juvenile court’s determination to

terminate Father’s parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm the

juvenile court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights.