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

Heading: reunification services for an incarcerated

Text: PARENT NEED ONLY BE CONSIDERED WHEN REUNIFICATION WITH THAT PARENT IS THE JUVENILE COURT’S PERMANENCY GOAL ¶ 14 Mother argues that the juvenile court was required to provide reasonable reunification services to her before it could terminate her parental rights. In so arguing, she relies on Utah Code section 78A-6-312(24)(a), which provides that in the event a parent is incarcerated, the juvenile court “shall order reasonable services unless it determines that those services would be detrimental to the minor.”2 Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it withheld 1 The Guardian ad Litem may be correct that the dispositional hearing is the most prudent and effective time for a parent to request reunification services. But our preservation rule does not require that the request be made at the optimal time. However, as Part II demonstrates, when a litigant preserves an argument may affect what she may argue on appeal. For instance, here, Mother’s failure to request reunification services at the dispositional hearing does not prevent us from considering her appeal on preservation grounds. But her failure to request a primary permanency goal involving reunification nonetheless affects our disposition of her appeal. As we conclude in Part II, because Mother never sought a primary permanency goal that included reunification with the Children, the juvenile court was not required to order reunification services. Thus, though Mother’s argument was preserved, her failure to request inclusion in the primary permanency goal ultimately affects the merits of her appeal. 2 We granted certiorari on the question of whether the juvenile court was required to make an explicit determination of detriment on the record. In view of our holding that reunification services were not implicated under the facts presented here, we need not address the question of whether such a determination, where (continued...) 5 STATE ex rel. A.T. Opinion of the Court reasonable services because of her incarceration without making a specific finding of detriment. We disagree. ¶ 15 A juvenile court must order reasonable services for an incarcerated parent only when reunification is consistent with the primary permanency goal established by the court. When the juvenile court has established a permanency goal that envisions reunification with an incarcerated parent, it “shall order reasonable services unless it determines that those services would be detrimental to the minor.” UTAH CODE § 78A-6-312(24)(a). ¶ 16 With any question of statutory interpretation, our primary goal is to effectuate the intent of the Legislature. State v. Watkins, 2013 UT 28, ¶ 18, 309 P.3d 209. The best evidence of the Legislature’s intent is the statute’s plain language. Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P’ship, 2011 UT 50, ¶ 14, 267 P.3d 863. “[W]e read the plain language of the statute as a whole, and interpret its provisions in harmony with other statutes in the same chapter and related chapters.” State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 29, 127 P.3d 682 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 17 Our holding that reunification services need only be considered when they are implicated by the primary permanency goal for a child is consistent with a harmonious reading of section 312. Under section 312, “[w]henever the court orders continued removal” of the child, “the court shall first establish a permanency goal for the minor.” UTAH CODE § 78A-6-312(2). The court is then required to “determine whether, in view of the primary permanency goal, reunification services are appropriate.” Id. § 78A-6-312(2)(b). The statute also states that if the parent is incarcerated or institutionalized, “the court shall order reasonable services unless it determines that those services would be detrimental to the minor.” Id. § 78A-6-312(24)(a). Thus, the statutory framework begins with the establishment of a primary permanency goal. And reunification services are considered in relation to that goal. Because reunification services are linked to the permanency goal and not independent of it, the requirement for providing such services must be construed in light of that goal. Thus, if a parent is incarcerated and the primary permanency goal does not envision reunification, then the requirements of subsection (24) do not come into play. It is only 2 (...continued) required, need be made explicitly on the record or merely supported by it. 6 Cite as: 2015 UT 41 Opinion of the Court when a primary permanency goal implicates an incarcerated parent that subsection (24) apply. ¶ 18 Nothing in the statutory language suggests that the juvenile court must order reunification services to incarcerated parents regardless of the primary permanency goal. Nor does the statutory language indicate that the juvenile court must invert the usual decision process and order services to an incarcerated parent before setting a primary permanency goal. ¶ 19 Mother’s proposed construction of subsection (24) would require the juvenile court to order reunification services to an incarcerated parent, absent a finding of detriment, regardless of the primary permanency goal. But such an interpretation would privilege the class of incarcerated parents over nonincarcerated parents whose eligibility for such services is dependent upon a primary permanency goal that contemplates reunification. Moreover, the factors listed in section 24(b) need only be considered when, “in view of the primary permanency goal, reunification services are appropriate for the minor and the minor’s family.” Id. § 78A-6-312(2)(b). For example, in a situation where a child’s primary permanency goal is adoption, it would be futile for the juvenile court to consider “the degree of parent-child bonding,” “the length of the [parent’s] sentence,” or “the nature of the treatment.” Id. § 78A-6-312(24)(b). Similarly, when adoption is a child’s primary permanency goal, many of the statutory factors, such as “the degree of detriment of the minor if services are not offered” and “the minor’s attitude toward the implementation of family reunification services” are rendered moot. Id. In short, the factors enumerated in subsection 24(b) contemplate a continuing relationship between parent and child. This is evidence of the Legislature’s intent that these factors need only be considered when “reunification services are appropriate for the minor and the minor’s family,” “in view of the primary permanency goal.” Id. § 78A-6-312(2)(b). ¶ 20 At the dispositional hearing in this case, the juvenile court set a permanency goal of reunification with Father. Because Mother was not implicated by that permanency goal, the juvenile court was not required to consider whether she qualified for reunification services. The juvenile court understood this. It explained that “the permanency goal set by the court in this case was for reunification with [Father] because he was the custodial parent at the time of removal and because [Mother] was serving a long-term prison 7 STATE ex rel. A.T. Opinion of the Court sentence.” And when the primary permanency goal was changed to adoption, ordering reunification services to either parent would have been inconsistent with that goal.3 ¶ 21 The court of appeals reversed the juvenile court because the juvenile court failed to make an explicit on-the-record determination that reunification services with Mother would be detrimental to the Children. L.G. v. State (State ex rel. A.T.), 2013 UT App 184, ¶ 15, 307 P.3d 672. But whether such a determination must be made on the record or simply supported by the record is not implicated here. In this case, the juvenile court was simply not required to determine whether reunification services would be detrimental to the Children because the permanency goal did not contemplate reunification with Mother. We therefore reverse the court of appeals.