Opinion ID: 4543427
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Termination Must Be Strictly Necessary to

Text: Promote the Best Interest of the Child ¶55 The GAL and Father both seek review of the court of appeals’ interpretation of the language the Legislature added to the Act in 2012—that “if the court finds strictly necessary” the court may terminate parental rights. UTAH CODE § 78A-6-507(1). The court of appeals held that a court must determine if termination is strictly necessary as part of its consideration of the best interest of the child. In Interest of B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 50, 436 P.3d 206. ¶56 The GAL contends that the court of appeal erred by tying strictly necessary to the best interest analysis. The GAL does not, however, offer an alternate interpretation of that language. Father, on the other hand, rejects the court of appeals’ interpretation and avers that the language means the court must “first and independently consider whether there are alternatives short of termination that will adequately protect all of the interests at stake,” including the parent’s interests. ¶57 Thus, the question becomes what did the Legislature intend when it predicated termination on a finding that termination is the court of appeals observed, we have not squarely addressed whether Utah’s best interest inquiry is constitutionally required, and thus we have not had to address the related question of whether the clear and convincing standard is likewise a constitutional requirement. See In Interest of B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 14 n.1. We note, however, that in In re Estate of S.T.T., this court considered what must be shown to rebut the presumption that the parent’s decision regarding grandparent visitation is in the child’s best interest. 2006 UT 46, ¶ 28, 144 P.3d 1083. Relying on Santosky, we held that “[b]ecause the parental presumption deals with parental liberty interests, and accordingly should be afforded great deference by the courts, we conclude that a clear and convincing standard of proof should apply to satisfy due process requirements.” Id. 18 Cite as: 2020 UT 36 Opinion of the Court strictly necessary. To answer this question, we start with the statute’s plain language. ¶58 As noted above, section 78A-6-507 states, “Subject to the protections and requirements of Section 78A-6-503, and if the court finds strictly necessary, the court may terminate all parental rights with respect to a parent if the court finds” one of the nine enumerated grounds for termination. (Emphasis added.) ¶59 Confusion emerges because the Legislature does not obviously identify for what purpose the court should find termination “strictly necessary.” 11 Stated differently, the language “strictly necessary” cannot exist in a vacuum. Termination must be strictly necessary to achieve some end. But section 507 does not identify that end. ¶60 Interpreting the Act as a whole reveals the answer— termination must be strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest. Subsection 507(1) mandates that the court’s termination analysis is “[s]ubject to the protections and requirements of Section 78A-6-503.” In section 503, the Legislature details a number of _____________________________________________________________ 11 The court of appeals analyzed the strictly necessary language by looking to the dictionary definitions of these words. After examining the dictionary, the court determined that courts should terminate rights only when it is “absolutely essential.” In Interest of B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶¶ 52–54. As explained above, the statute’s lack of clarity does not arise because the words themselves are not easily understood. Strictly necessary is no less understandable than the phrase absolutely essential. And we do not believe that the bar and bench are well served by the suggestion that a juvenile court should find that termination is absolutely essential in order to conclude that the termination is strictly necessary. As noted, the confusion comes not from the words themselves but because the statute does not immediately say for what purpose termination should be strictly necessary. Hence, we think it sufficient to leave the statutory words as they are and not contemplate synonyms. Otherwise we are just swapping the words the Legislature chose for words that it did not. As we have observed, “[l]anguage matters and, over time, even small variations can take on lives of their own and distort the analysis.” State v. Gallegos, 2020 UT 19, ¶ 58; --P.3d --. In light of that, a juvenile court’s inquiry should address whether termination is strictly necessary to promote a child’s welfare and best interest. 19 In re B.T.B and B.Z.B. Opinion of the Court important policy statements that a court must keep front of mind when deciding what is in a child’s best interest. For example, the Legislature recognized that the “interests of the state favor preservation and not severance of natural familial bonds in situations where a positive, nurturing parent-child relationship can exist, including extended family association and support.” UTAH CODE § 78A-6-503(10)(d). And, lest there be any question about the manner in which the Legislature believed the state should wield the power to dissolve parental bonds, the Act states “[w]herever possible, family life should be strengthened and preserved.” See id. § 78A-6-503(12). ¶61 But the Legislature finishes the sentence that begins “[w]herever possible, family life should be strengthened and preserved” with the instruction that “if a parent is found . . . to be unfit or incompetent based upon any of the grounds for termination,” “the welfare and best interest of the child” should be considered “of paramount importance in determining whether termination of parental rights shall be ordered.” Id. Thus, once a statutory ground for termination is found, identifying the option for the child that promotes her welfare and best interest takes precedence over the other considerations. 12 ¶62 Therefore, although section 507 does not expressly say to what end a court should find termination is “strictly necessary,” section 503 directs that the purpose of the termination proceeding is to promote the welfare and best interest of the child. Thus, if a court finds statutory grounds for termination, the court must determine if termination is strictly necessary for the welfare and best interest of the child. _____________________________________________________________ 12 This conclusion follows from the Legislature’s choice of the word paramount. Paramount, MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE, https:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paramount (defining “paramount” as “superior to all others”); Paramount, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY ONLINE, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/ dictionary/english/paramount (defining “paramount” as “more important than anything else”). Thus, when the Legislature instructed that the court should consider the “welfare and best interest of the child of paramount importance,” it elevated that consideration above all of the other important interests the Act identifies. 20 Cite as: 2020 UT 36 Opinion of the Court ¶63 As the court of appeals stated, this analysis “should be undertaken from the child’s point of view, not the parent’s.” In Interest of B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 54. 13 However, the court of appeals also stated that “in [doing the best interest analysis,] courts should not forget the constitutional dimension of the parental rights on the other side of the ledger.” Id. ¶ 55. And in briefing to this court, Father similarly argues that once grounds are found, the court must consider whether to terminate parental rights while considering the interests of both the parent and the child. ¶64 We agree that the welfare and best interest analysis should be undertaken from the child’s point of view. But we reject the proposition that the juvenile court is to, at the best interest stage, weigh a parent’s constitutional rights against the child’s welfare and best interest. If a court has adhered to the statutory framework, a parent’s constitutional rights will have received substantive and procedural protections throughout the process. And the parent’s constitutional rights will continue to receive protection during the best interest inquiry through the strictly necessary requirement and the clear and convincing standard. But when the court considers a child’s welfare and best interest, the court’s focus should be firmly fixed on finding the outcome that best secures the child’s well-being. ¶65 That is not to say that the role of a natural parent is irrelevant to the best interest inquiry. Quite to the contrary, the Legislature has made clear that, as a matter of state policy, the default position is that “[i]t is in the best interest and welfare of a child to be raised under the care and supervision of the child’s natural parents,” and that a “child’s need for a normal family life in a permanent home, and for positive, nurturing family relationships is usually best met by the child’s natural parents.” UTAH CODE § 78A-6- 503(8). Indeed, the Legislature recognizes a “right of the child to be reared by the child’s natural parent.” Id. § 78A-6-503(4). For these reasons, the Legislature has required that a court only terminate parental rights when it is strictly necessary to promote a child’s welfare and best interest. ¶66 In other words, a court must start the best interest analysis from the legislatively mandated position that “[w]herever possible, _____________________________________________________________ 13 We also note, by way of reminder, that the Legislature incorporated the requirement that the strictly necessary analysis proceed from the child’s point of view into the statute in a 2020 amendment. See supra ¶ 25 n.4. 21 In re B.T.B and B.Z.B. Opinion of the Court family life should be strengthened and preserved.” Id. § 78A-6- 503(12). A court may then terminate parental rights only when it concludes that a different option is in the child’s best interest and that termination is strictly necessary to facilitate that option. If the child can be equally protected and benefited by an option other than termination, termination is not strictly necessary. And the court cannot order the parent’s rights terminated. ¶67 As the court of appeals eloquently stated, [T]his part of the inquiry also requires courts to explore whether other feasible options exist that could address the specific problems or issues facing the family, short of imposing the ultimate remedy of terminating the parent's rights. In some cases, alternatives will be few and unsatisfactory, and termination of the parent’s rights will be the option that is in the child’s best interest. But in other cases, . . . courts should consider whether other less-permanent arrangements . . . might serve the child's needs just as well . . . . In Interest of B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 55. ¶68 The GAL avers that the court of appeals’ construction of “strictly necessary,” especially with the attention it pays to alternatives to termination, runs counter to the goal of providing children with permanency. See State in Interest of K.C., 2015 UT 92, ¶ 27, 362 P.3d 1248 (“Children have an interest in permanency and stability.”); State in interest of M.H., 2014 UT 26, ¶ 44, 347 P.3d 368 (Nehring, A.C.J., concurring) (“Indeed, the policy underlying the Child Welfare Reform Act is one of swift permanency.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). ¶69 However, the GAL’s argument misses that the policy of permanence and the statutory language, as the court of appeals accurately described it, are not mutually exclusive. A court deciding whether termination is strictly necessary for the child’s best interest would consider a child’s need for permanence as part of that inquiry. The strictly necessary language is designed to ensure that the court pause long enough to thoughtfully consider the range of available options that could promote the child’s welfare and best interest. ¶70 The State, as amicus, also raised a concern about the court of appeals’ suggestion that courts look to “less permanent arrangements.” Specifically, the State worries that this instruction runs contrary to the State’s express statutory requirements to achieve permanence for children. (Citing, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C) 22 Cite as: 2020 UT 36 Opinion of the Court (discussing federal permanency timelines); UTAH CODE § 78A-6-314 (establishing mandatory state permanency timelines); UTAH CODE § 62A-4a-105(1)(g) (requiring DCFS to enforce federal laws for protection of children)). ¶71 But the court of appeals’ analysis must be read in the context in which it arose. As the court of appeals notes, a parent, and not the State, filed the termination petition here. Such private termination proceedings do not involve the same services and timelines regarding permanency that would usually be required if the State were involved. See UTAH CODE § 78A-6-314. And private termination proceedings lack many of the parental protections that are built into the process when the State seeks termination of parental rights. 14 That means that in cases like this, the best interest analysis may be the only real opportunity for the court to consider whether something short of termination would serve the child’s welfare and best interest. 15 We do not read the court of appeals decision to suggest that the strictly necessary finding is an invitation to disrupt the timelines and permanency goals at play when the State petitions for termination. 16 _____________________________________________________________ 14 For example, as the court of appeals stated, “[i]n private cases where a petitioner seeks to terminate the rights of a non-custodial parent, . . . no statute requires the court to even consider whether to implement reunification services, and often no infrastructure is in place through which to offer any such services in any event.” In Interest of B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 23 n.6. 15 See id. (“A rigorous ‘best interest’ analysis sometimes presents the only meaningful opportunity that parents have to demonstrate to the court that, despite the existence of a statutory ground for termination, they have been recently engaged in significant efforts to improve their lives and remedy their past issues.”). 16 The State avers that the cases that have been decided since B.T.B. suggest that the court of appeals did not “upend the termination equation” and “that B.T.B. does not represent the sort of wholesale impediment to termination of parental rights that the [GAL] would suggest.” Those cases are not before us, and we are therefore in no position to opine on whether they are correctly decided, but we are nonetheless heartened by the suggestion that, at least from the State’s perspective, the court of appeals’ decision in B.T.B. is not causing the problems the GAL predicts. 23 In re B.T.B and B.Z.B. Opinion of the Court ¶72 The GAL is also concerned that a juvenile court would not have jurisdiction to consider options other than termination when the matter originates in a private petition to terminate rights. But when a juvenile court has jurisdiction of a minor under Utah Code Section 78A-6-103, that court “has jurisdiction over questions of custody, support, and parent time of [the] minor.” UTAH CODE § 78A-6-104(5). We have recognized that a juvenile court considering a termination petition possesses jurisdiction over questions of custody, support, and parent-time. See A.S. v. R.S, 2017 UT 77, ¶ 2, 416 P.3d 465. Thus, a juvenile court is empowered to consider the full range of options that it might employ to promote a child’s welfare and best interest. ¶73 Father, on the other hand, argues (1) that the strictly necessarily language creates a separate element, and (2) that a court must consider whether termination is strictly necessary before it considers whether grounds for termination are present. ¶74 As to the first contention, Father primarily argues that if strictly necessary is not treated as a separate element of the inquiry, it risks becoming lost to the point of becoming superfluous. We take Father’s point; the Legislature added this requirement to the statute and a court must consider whether termination is strictly necessary. We disagree, however, with Father’s contention that the only way to ensure a court finds that termination is strictly necessary is to make it a separate element. As discussed above, the language is not rendered superfluous by being part of the best interest analysis. It still requires the court to find, on the record, that no other option can achieve the same welfare and best interest for the child. Supra ¶¶ 65– 67. ¶75 Even assuming, hypothetically, that the Legislature intended strictly necessary to be a separate element, Father points to nothing in the text to support his second contention that the Legislature intended that a court address whether termination was strictly necessary as the first step of the analysis. And we see nothing in the Act to support that contention either. ¶76 We agree with the court of appeals that the amendment to the Act did not create a third element to the termination analysis. Rather, after sufficient grounds for termination have been found, the court must assess what is in the child’s best interest. And as part of that inquiry, a court must specifically address whether termination is strictly necessary to promote the child’s welfare and best interest. 24 Cite as: 2020 UT 36 Opinion of the Court