Opinion ID: 2789676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: mother’s argument was considered by the

Text: JUVENILE COURT ¶ 8 The Guardian ad Litem first argues that the court of appeals erred by failing to address whether Mother preserved her claim that the juvenile court did not comply with the requirements of section 78A-6-312(24) of the Utah Code. Specifically, it asserts that Mother’s request for reunification services was untimely because she did not raise it at the dispositional hearing when the primary permanency goal was established. We are not persuaded and conclude that Mother’s argument concerning reunification services was sufficiently preserved. 3 STATE ex rel. A.T. Opinion of the Court ¶ 9 “We generally will not consider an issue unless it has been preserved for appeal.” Patterson v. Patterson, 2011 UT 68, ¶ 12, 266 P.3d 828. To be preserved for appeal, the issue must have been “presented to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to rule on [it].” J.M.W. v. T.I.Z. (In re Adoption of Baby E.Z.), 2011 UT 38, ¶ 25, 266 P.3d 702 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 10 Mother presented her argument to the juvenile court and the juvenile court ruled on it. The juvenile court noted, “[Mother] argued at trial that her parental rights should not be terminated because DCFS has failed to make reasonable efforts to provide her reunification services.” The juvenile court reasoned that Mother’s argument failed because the permanency goal set by the court was for reunification with Father, not her, and therefore he was the parent entitled to reasonable services from DCFS. ¶ 11 The Guardian ad Litem contends that Mother raised the issue too late because a parent is required to bring a request for reasonable reunification services at the dispositional hearing when the primary permanency goal is established. The Guardian ad Litem also argues that allowing Mother to raise her claim after the dispositional hearing creates an absurd result by depriving “the juvenile court of an opportunity to rule on the issue” and depriving parents of “precious time to engage in services.” ¶ 12 We disagree and conclude that Mother’s request for reunification services was brought in a timely manner. The Guardian ad Litem’s argument is inconsistent with what the statute envisions and what our precedent requires. Under Utah Code section 78A-6-507(3)(a), during a termination hearing the juvenile court is required to find that DCFS “made reasonable efforts to provide [reunification] services before the court may terminate the parent’s rights.” Thus, the statute provides that a parent may raise DCFS’ failure to provide reasonable reunification services at the termination hearing itself. ¶ 13 Similarly, under our case law, Mother was free to object to the lack of reunification services at the termination hearing because the earlier dispositional hearing was neither final nor appealable. See A.O. v. State (State ex rel. K.F.), 2009 UT 4, ¶ 37, 201 P.3d 985. A dispositional or permanency hearing “does not always result in an order that affects the permanent status of the child.” C.M.F. v. State (State ex rel. A.F.), 2007 UT 69, ¶ 6, 167 P.3d 1070. In many cases, these hearings “result in orders that merely set a direction for the remainder of the proceedings,” id., and the parties are still able to 4 Cite as: 2015 UT 41 Opinion of the Court regain custody “by taking steps to show fitness and petitioning the court for custody at any time prior to termination of [their] parental rights,” id. ¶ 8. Thus, Mother could have petitioned the court for reunification services up until termination of her parental rights.1 We therefore conclude that Mother’s request for reunification services was timely and was accordingly preserved for appeal. We now turn to the Guardian ad Litem’s argument that Mother was not entitled to reunification services.