2013 UT App 195

_________________________________________________________

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF Z.H., A PERSON UNDER

EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

H.M.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20130338‐CA

Filed August 1, 2013

Second District Juvenile, Farmington Department

The Honorable Paul F. Iwasaki

No. 1066735

Erin Hill, Attorney 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 H.M. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s March 25, 2013

order terminating her parental rights. We affirm.

¶2 Mother asserts that there was insufficient evidence to

support the juvenile court’s determination that she is an unfit or

incompetent parent. She also asserts that there was insufficient

evidence that the State made reasonable efforts to provide her with

services. In order to overturn the juvenile court’s decision as to the
In re Z.H.

20130338‐CA 2013 2 UT App 195

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,renderfindings of fact. SeeIn 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 basedon

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 Mother is an unfit or

incompetent parent. Although the juvenile court found additional

grounds supporting the termination of her parental rights, this

court need not review each alternative ground for termination, as

the finding that a parent is unfit or incompetent is a sufficient

ground to warrant the termination of parental rights. See Utah

Code Ann. § 78A‐6‐507(1) (LexisNexis 2012). The juvenile court

may adjudicate a parent as unfit if the parent’s habitual or

excessive use of intoxicating liquors, controlled substances, or

dangerous drugs renderthe parent unable to care for the child. See

id. § 78A‐6‐508(2)(c).

¶4 The record supports the juvenile court’s determination that

Mother has an extensive history of controlled substance abuse,

which renders her unable to care for her child. Mother has abused

several illegal substances since she was fifteen years old. Mother

continued to abuse drugs during these child welfare proceedings.

Although Mother asserts that there was insufficient evidence that
In re Z.H.

20130338‐CA 2013 3 UT App 195

the State made reasonable efforts to provide her with services, the

record indicates that she was provided with reasonable services.

Mother was referred for a drug and alcohol assessment in June of

2012. Mother did not complete the assessment until September 5,

2012. Mother was not truthful in her assessment and she

represented that she did not abuse illegal substances. Following a

series of positive drug tests, Mother was referred to an intensive

outpatient treatment program. However, she refused to enter the

recommended drug treatment program because she did not want

to undertake intensive drug treatment therapy. The record also

demonstrates that Mother did not successfully complete the

recommendations of the substance abuse providers to address the

long term goals of sobriety. Mother fails to demonstrate that the

juvenile court erred by determining that she is an unfit or

incompetent parent and that reasonable efforts and services were

provided to her.

¶5 Mother next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to

support the juvenile court’s determination that it was in the child’s

best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights. If there are

sufficient grounds to terminate parentalrights, in orderto actually

do so, “the court must[next] find that the best interests and welfare

of the child are served by terminating the parents’ parentalrights.”

In re R.A.J., 1999 UT App 329, ¶ 7, 991 P.2d 1118. This court may

not engage in a reweighing of the evidence that was before the

juvenile court. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12.

¶6 The record supports the juvenile court’s determination that

it was in the child’s best interest to terminate Mother’s parental

rights. The juvenile court determined that the child does not have

a healthy bond with Mother, and that Mother is unable or

unwilling to provide an appropriate home environment for the

child. The record also demonstrates that the child has developed a

healthy bond with his foster family, which provides the necessary

structure, stability, and predictability for the child. The child has

become integrated into the foster family where he receives proper

care, parenting, love, and the stability that he requires. The foster
In re Z.H.

20130338‐CA 2013 4 UT App 195

family also wants to adopt the child. Mother fails to demonstrate

that the juvenile court erred by determining that it is in the child’s

best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights.

¶7 Accordingly, the juvenile court’s order is affirmed.