Opinion ID: 1205942
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the state's duty to provide assistance

Text: The Andersons allege that it was improper for the State to have terminated their parental rights in J.C.O. and E.J.A. without advising them of their parenting deficiencies and attempting to rehabilitate them as parents. As support for their claim that the State must advise parents of deficiencies before it can terminate their rights, the Andersons rely on State v. Lance, 23 Utah 2d 407, 464 P.2d 395 (1970). In Lance, this Court overturned a termination order because the evidence connecting the children's problems with the parental behavior did not demonstrate that the behavior was seriously detrimental to the children. 23 Utah 2d at 412, 464 P.2d at 398. In the course of that opinion, the Court stated: Another factor which strongly militates against the judgment of the court is the total lack of evidence that Mrs. Lance was informed of the alleged inadequacies of the environment she was providing so that she might have an opportunity to improve these conditions. Since the species of her neglect involved rather subtle psychological factors  interference with the adequate social, educational, and psychological adjustment of her children  justice requires that she be informed of the condition and be advised of appropriate remedial action. 23 Utah 2d at 413, 464 P.2d at 399 (emphasis added). The foregoing comment in Lance was dicta and does not, by its own terms, apply when children are physically endangered by abuse or neglect. Furthermore, any notification of deficiencies, if and when required, need not be formal. We note that in the course of negotiations with the Gilgens, the Larsens, and the Division of Family Services, the Andersons were provided with a detailed list of problems in need of correction before the children could be returned to them. The Andersons also contend that the State cannot terminate their parental rights without attempting to rehabilitate them as parents. The Andersons do not identify the source of this duty in Utah law, beyond citing dictum from Interest of Walter B., 577 P.2d 119, 124 (Utah 1978), and alluding to the administrative procedures of the Division of Family Services. Nor do they comment on the scope of the duty or what methods may be employed to fulfill it. We do not, however, need to reach these issues because there is ample evidence in the record indicating that the Andersons were offered the services of the Division of Family Services, including parenting classes, medical care, protective day, care and assistance in obtaining employment and public assistance, but did not avail themselves of any of the services. Neither did they heed the counseling provided them by their pastor or use the special nutritional counseling available through the Women Infants and Children Program, although those services were also proffered. They moved at least twice without informing the Division of Family Services, the Gilgens, or the Larsens of their whereabouts, and they made only the most minimal efforts at preparing themselves to parent: they were legally married, they reformed the boys' birth certificates, and they attended one parenting class. We think that whatever duty the State may have to rehabilitate parents was satisfied in this case, and we note that rehabilitation is an effort that requires commitment on the part of the parents, as well as the availability of services from the State.