In re K.R...

2023 UT App 75

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF K.R. AND R.B.,
PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.

R.S.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.

Per Curiam Opinion
No. 20230255-CA
Filed July 13, 2023

Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Monica Diaz
No. 1207437

Kelton Reed and Lisa Lokken
Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, John M. Peterson, and Carol L.C.
Verdoia, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem

Before JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, DAVID N.
MORTENSEN, and AMY J. OLIVER.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 R.S. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights with respect to K.R. (Brother) and
R.B. (Sister) (collectively, the children). Mother alleges the
juvenile court exceeded its discretion in determining that it was
strictly necessary to terminate her rights rather than awarding
permanent custody and guardianship to the children’s maternal
grandmother (Grandmother). We affirm.
In re K.R.

¶2 In January 2022, the Department of Child and Family
Services (DCFS) received a report that Mother was using drugs
and neglecting Sister, who was an infant at the time. Four-year-
old Brother was already living with Grandmother, and DCFS
soon placed Sister with Grandmother as well.

¶3 Following a disposition hearing, the Court set a primary
goal of reunification and set up a child and family plan. Mother
received an initial substance abuse and mental health assessment
but made no progress toward receiving treatment. She took only
five of ninety-six required drug tests and tested positive on all
five.

¶4 Nevertheless, Mother continued to demonstrate an
attachment to the children. She participated in visits with the
children on a bi-weekly basis, although she did miss some visits
and had not seen the children for several weeks prior to the
termination trial. The visits were supervised by a DCFS
caseworker (Caseworker), and the children had to travel six-and-
a-half hours round trip to attend. On some occasions, Mother
cancelled visits without notifying Grandmother, leading the
children to make the trip unnecessarily. Brother became upset
when Mother missed visits with him.

¶5 Early on, Caseworker observed Mother having
“inappropriate conversations” with Brother regarding
Grandmother, such as telling him that Grandmother was not
properly caring for him. Caseworker would redirect Mother to
more appropriate topics, and “with reminders, this behavior . . .
stopped.” Mother engaged with the children during visits and
planned activities for them to do together.

¶6 Grandmother and Mother used to have a good
relationship, but it had deteriorated due to Mother’s drug use and
the DCFS case. According to Grandmother, Brother’s behavior
would “deregulate[] for a couple days” after visits with Mother
and he would become belligerent toward Grandmother. Mother

20230255-CA 2 2023 UT App 75
In re K.R.

would send Grandmother insulting text messages, and she had
trouble respecting boundaries Grandmother set. Both women
indicated they would not be comfortable “co-parenting” with one
another.

¶7 Following the termination trial, the juvenile court found
several grounds for termination, which Mother does not challenge
on appeal. The court then turned to the best interest analysis,
including the question of whether termination of parental rights
was strictly necessary.

¶8 The court considered whether awarding permanent
guardianship to Grandmother was an alternative to termination
that could “equally protect and benefit the children.” However,
the court ultimately determined that termination was strictly
necessary for the following reasons:

• Mother and Grandmother “do not have a
relationship” and are “unable to communicate
regarding the children’s needs and wellbeing.” And
while Grandmother attempts to set reasonable
boundaries, Mother does not respect them. Mother
herself acknowledged that “having her and
[Grandmother] co-parent would not be healthy for
the children.”

• Mother had a history of making inappropriate
comments regarding Grandmother to Brother
during parent time. These comments led Brother to
become belligerent toward Grandmother following
visits. Although Mother had stopped making such
comments at the direction of Caseworker, the court
was concerned that she would “revert to making
these comments, without the oversight of the
Division.” The court found that pitting the children
against their caregiver in this way was “unhealthy”
for their “emotional development and wellbeing.”

20230255-CA 3 2023 UT App 75
In re K.R.

• Visits with Mother “are emotionally hard on the
children.” Brother experiences behavioral problems
after visits with Mother.

• The children have to travel six-and-a-half hours
round trip to visit Mother. Because Mother does not
communicate with Grandmother, she does not let
her know when she is unable to attend visits. This
has led the children to “endure the travel time
needlessly.” Additionally, it is emotionally hard on
Brother when Mother misses visits. The long travel
time, emotional harm due to missed visits, and
Mother’s inability to communicate with
Grandmother combine to undermine the children’s
stability. “They need to know that their
relationships are stable and that they can count on
the adults in their lives. . . . [Mother] missing visits
undermines and disregards the children’s
psychological and emotional security.”

• The children are happy and thriving in
Grandmother’s care. She addresses their physical,
mental, developmental, and emotional needs. The
children are bonded to their extended family, which
consists of Grandmother’s husband and other
children living in Grandmother’s home. The
children “need a permanent home,” and “[f]rom the
children’s point of view, that home is
[Grandmother’s] home.”

Based on these factors, the court found that termination of
Mother’s parental rights was “strictly necessary from the
children’s point of view.”

¶9 Mother challenges the juvenile court’s determination that
termination of her rights was strictly necessary. “Whether a
parent’s rights should be terminated presents a mixed question of

20230255-CA 4 2023 UT App 75
In re K.R.

law and fact.” In re B.W., 2022 UT App 131, ¶ 45, 521 P.3d 896
(quotation simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1269 (Utah 2023). “We
will overturn a termination decision only if the juvenile court
either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts
and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the
evidence.” Id. (quotation simplified).

¶10 Mother asserts (1) that the court did not appropriately
weigh certain evidence and (2) that the court inappropriately
focused on the needs of the adults rather than the children by
basing its decision on Mother and Grandmother’s inability to
“coparent” the children.

¶11 Before terminating a parent’s rights, the court must find
that termination is “strictly necessary to promote the child’s best
interest.” In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 60, 472 P.3d 827. And this
analysis must be undertaken from the child’s point of view. See
Utah Code § 80-4-301(1); In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 64.
“Termination is strictly necessary only when, after exploring
possible placements for the child, the juvenile court concludes
that no 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 re J.P., 2021
UT App 134, ¶ 15, 502 P.3d 1247 (quotation simplified). “If the
child can be equally protected and benefited by an option other
than termination, termination is not strictly necessary.” Id.
(quotation simplified).

¶12 The strictly necessary analysis “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.” In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 69. “[I]f a court has complied
with its statutory obligations, its resultant best interest
determination is entitled to deference.” In re B.W., 2022 UT App
131, ¶ 69. Thus, a parent’s mere dissatisfaction “with the manner

20230255-CA 5 2023 UT App 75
In re K.R.

in which the juvenile court weighed the evidence . . . has no
traction on appeal.” In re J.P., 2021 UT App 134, ¶ 23.

¶13 Mother argues that the court’s finding that Brother was
upset when she missed visits should weigh against a finding that
termination was strictly necessary. She also asserts that the court
should have given more weight to her recent history of stopping
her inappropriate comments to Brother rather than inferring that
she was likely to resume such comments in the future. These
arguments ultimately take issue with “the manner in which the
juvenile court weighed the evidence” rather than its compliance
with its statutory mandate. See id. The court’s findings are entitled
to deference, and we will not disturb them on appeal. See In re
B.W., 2022 UT App 131, ¶ 69.

¶14 Mother next asserts that the court’s focus on her and
Grandmother’s inability to “co-parent” the children was
inappropriate and led it to consider the strictly necessary analysis
from the adults’ perspective rather than the children’s
perspective. See Utah Code § 80-4-301(1) (dictating that the strictly
necessary analysis must be undertaken from the child’s point of
view). Mother argues that a permanent custody and guardianship
order does not result in “co-parenting” but rather involves “the
Guardian call[ing] the shots” while “the parent has a handful of
residual rights.” We take Mother’s point that co-parenting may
not have been quite the right term to use in describing the
relationship between a parent and a permanent guardian.1
However, we are more concerned with the substance of the

1. Nevertheless, as the guardian ad litem observes, it is not
apparent from the record that Mother was “up to the tasks
involved with residual parental rights,” given that she has not
paid child support, has not respected the boundaries
Grandmother has put in place, has not progressed past
supervised visitation, and has disappointed the children by
failing to communicate about missed visits.

20230255-CA 6 2023 UT App 75
In re K.R.

court’s analysis than the term it used. And that analysis indicates
that the court’s true concern was whether it was in the children’s
best interests to be pitted between a parent and guardian who
could neither cooperate nor communicate with one another.

¶15 “[L]ong-term guardianship arrangements are typically
only in a child’s best interest where the guardians and the parent
have a working, relatively healthy relationship in which they are
both willing to work together to preserve the parent-child
relationship and where the child has a healthy relationship with
both the guardian and the parent.” In re J.P., 2021 UT App 134,
¶ 22 (quotation simplified). Thus, when a parent and guardian
have “little to no relationship,” the particular circumstances of the
case may indicate that permanent custody and guardianship will
not meet the children’s needs as well as termination of parental
rights. See id. That is what the juvenile court found here, and such
a finding was not an abuse of its discretion under the
circumstances.

¶16 Furthermore, we are not convinced that the juvenile court
inappropriately conducted the strictly necessary analysis from the
adults’ point of view rather than that of the children. The court
explicitly discussed the effect Mother and Grandmother’s
inability to cooperate had on the children, finding that being put
in the middle of the conflict was “unhealthy” for the children’s
“emotional development and wellbeing” and undermined their
stability, that the children suffered when Mother did not
communicate with Grandmother about missing visits, and that
Mother herself acknowledged that the conflict was “unhealthy”
for the children. These findings indicate that the court considered
the conflict between Mother and Grandmother from the
children’s point of view in determining that the conflict made
termination of Mother’s rights strictly necessary.

¶17 The juvenile court here carefully considered whether the
children could be equally benefited and protected by a permanent

20230255-CA 7 2023 UT App 75
In re K.R.

custody and guardianship arrangement as opposed to
termination of Mother’s parental rights. It also made detailed
findings in support of its determination that termination was
strictly necessary from the children’s point of view. Accordingly,
the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights
is affirmed.

20230255-CA 8 2023 UT App 75