2013 UT App 211

_________________________________________________________

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF G.P. AND S.P.,

PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

R.P.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20130347‐CA

Filed August 29, 2013

Second District Juvenile, Ogden Department

The Honorable Michelle E. Heward

No. 1027272

Lyle W. Hillyard and A. Jase Allen, Attorneys for

Appellant

John E. Swallow and John M. Peterson, Attorneys

for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

Before JUDGES THORNE, VOROS, and CHRISTIANSEN.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 R.P. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parentalrights

in her children, G.P. and S.P. We affirm.

¶2 Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to

support the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination of her

parental rights was in the children’s best interests. A juvenile

court’s findings of fact will not be overturned unless they are
In re G.P...

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, itis againstthe clear weight ofthe

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 orthe

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.

¶3 Mother asserts that the juvenile court did not properly

weigh the evidence. She contends that some evidence unfavorable

to her, such as her two attempts on the children’s lives, was given

too much weight, and that other evidence favorable to her was not

given enough weight. However, this court does not reweigh the

evidence where there is a foundation for the juvenile court’s

decision. See id.

¶4 Evidence was presented to support the juvenile court’s

decision that termination was in the children’s best interests.

Specifically,the evidence showed thatMother would likely always

be a safety risk for the children because she is able to mask her

symptoms and present well even when she is off medication.

Additionally, when in an unstructured environment, Mother has

shown a pattern of going off of her medication. Although Mother

could hide her symptoms for a time, her mental illness ultimately

manifests itself in severe episodes that put herself and others at

risk.

¶5 Conversely,the children’s stepmotherprovides a stable and

loving influence. Stepmother is willing to adopt the children and

make the relationship they have already formed permanent and

legal. Given Mother’s safety risks and the availability of a stable

and permanent relationship with Stepmother, the juvenile court

20130347‐CA 2013 2 UT App 2011
In re G.P...

had sufficient evidence to find that termination of Mother’s

parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

¶6 Affirmed.1

1. The only issue Mother asserted in her petition was whether the

evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that

termination was in the children’s best interests. The arguments

made were wide ranging, however, and not confined to

challenging the evidence. To the extent that other issues were

raised in the arguments, we find them to be without merit and do

not address them further. See State v.Carter, 776 P.2d 886, 888 (Utah

1989).

20130347‐CA 2013 3 UT App 2011