Opinion ID: 2634909
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the mother lost her parental presumption when she voluntarily placed k.f. in state custody

Text: ¶ 65 The mother argues that the juvenile court erred when the court changed K.F.'s permanency plan to individualized permanency without considering her parental presumption. Although the record does not indicate that the juvenile court explicitly considered the mother's parental presumption when the court decided to terminate reunification efforts, the mother lost the presumption when she voluntarily placed K.F. in state custody the year before. ¶ 66 Utah law recognizes that in a custody dispute between a parent and a non-parent, there is a presumption that it is in the best interest of the child to be under the care, custody, and control of the child's natural parent. [59] It has been recognized that every natural parent has a right to rely on the parental presumption to prevent the transfer of his or her child's custody to a nonparent, unless the presumption has been rebutted or otherwise lost. [60] If the parental presumption is overcome, the parent and non-parent compete on equal footing and the court will consider other factors when determining custody. [61] ¶ 67 In Hutchison v. Hutchison , we held that the presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the parent lacks all three of the characteristics giving rise to the presumption: (1) that no strong mutual bond exists, (2) that the parent has not demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice his or her own interest and welfare for the child's, and (3) that the parent lacks the sympathy for and understanding of the child that is characteristic of parents generally. [62] ¶ 68 The parental presumption is lost where a parent has had his or her parental rights terminated or has previously lost custody of a child. [63] The loss of custody, whether temporary or permanent, must be the result of a final factual determination on the merits of an underlying petition. [64] The loss of the parental presumption denies the parent the right to reassert the parental presumption at a later date unless custody has since been restored to the parent.  [65] ¶ 69 The parental presumption does not apply, as the court of appeals has correctly held, to cases brought before the [juvenile] court on abuse, neglect, or dependency petitions. [66] In such cases, the petition alone is sufficient to overcome the parental presumption for purposes of adjudicating the allegations in the petition. [67] ¶ 70 In Davis v. Davis, the court of appeals concluded that by signing a custody stipulation that only reserved visitation, the father had implicitly agreed that his parental presumption had been rebutted and that the best interests of the child dictated that he not receive custody. [68] We agree. The parental presumption does not apply to a parent who has lost or voluntarily relinquished custody of his or her child. We need not, therefore, address whether the mother's presumption was rebutted under the Hutchison analysis because she lost her presumption when she voluntarily placed K.F. in state custody.