Opinion ID: 2626921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: april permanency hearing

Text: ¶6 In April 2005, Juvenile Court Judge Andrew Valdez held a permanency hearing as required by Utah Code section 78-3a-312(1)(a) for all of the children in DCFS custody except A.K. (the April Permanency Hearing). [2] In accordance with Utah Code section 78-3a-312(2)(a), Judge Valdez inquired at the April Permanency Hearing whether the children could safely be returned to Mother's custody. With regard to the children's safety, Judge Valdez heard three days of testimony from Mother, the children's therapists, and Mother's therapists that focused in large measure upon Mother's acknowledgment of past abuse as it related to her ability to protect the children from future abuse. The parties disputed whether Mother had made enough of an acknowledgment of past abuse and developed sufficient empathy to demonstrate that the children would be safe in her care. Judge Valdez also interviewed the children on the record in his chambers with only the attorneys present. ¶7 At the conclusion of the April Permanency Hearing, Judge Valdez made an oral ruling, which he revised at a clarification hearing on April 15, 2005, and entered as a written order on May 25, 2005. Judge Valdez's written findings included the following positive assessments with respect to Mother and the safety of the children: 2. Based upon the testimony of Ms. Merkley and Ms. Peters, the therapists for [Mother], [Mother] has made significant adjustments with respect to the matters which led to the removal of the children from her care. 3. [Mother] has made progress in what this Court has ordered her to do in terms of counseling and therapy. 4. The children have expressed that they desire to return home to live with their mother . . . and have not expressed any fear of returning home to live with their mother. 5. [Mother] has shown marked improvement and the Court feels that she would be capable of standing up for either herself or the children, and that [Mother] would be capable of protecting the children. 6. [Mother] has a clean and suitable home for the children. ¶8 Nevertheless, Judge Valdez also found the following: 7. Returning the children immediately would not be in their best interests and may pose substantial risk or detriment to their emotional well-being based upon the testimony of their therapists. 8. It is in the best interests of the children for reunification services to be extended with respect to [Mother], and for the children['s] therapists to formulate a plan for transitioning them home without substantial risk or detriment to their emotional well-being. 9. Initial supervision by a therapist of the visitation between the children and [Mother] is necessary to enable any emotional or behavioral needs of the children to be addressed which may arise in either the resumption of contact with [Mother] or the children's transition to her home. 10. It is necessary for the therapists to formulate a transition plan to address the children['s] emotional and behavioral needs and to address the order in which the children are to return home, the length of time needed for therapeutic assistance in the transition for each child, and continuing therapeutic needs for the family subject to the therapists['] recommendations or further orders of this Court. He then concluded as a matter of law: 11. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-312(4)(d), there has been substantial compliance by [Mother] with the child and family plan, reunification with the children is probable within ninety (90) days, and the extension of reunification services with respect to [Mother] is in the children['s] best interests. Judge Valdez ordered a ninety-day extension of reunification services for Mother, as well as involvement by therapists to address any emotional or behavioral issues which may arise in the transition home. The order stated, in part, B. Supervised visitation between [Mother] and each of the above-named children is to begin immediatelythe first to occur the weekend of April 15, 16 or 17, 2005with the purpose of moving towards extended and unsupervised visitation and, ultimately, transitioning the children home by the next hearing date or sooner, subject to [Mother's] continued compliance.