In re N.V. (N.V. v. State)

1. The Honorable Pamela T. Greenwood, Senior Judge, sat by
special assignment as authorized by law. See generally Utah Code
Jud. Admin. R. 11-201(6).
2014 UT App 94
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF N.V., A PERSON UNDER
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
N.V.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20140141-CA
Filed April 24, 2014
Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Kimberly K. Hornak
No. 1084329
David C. Cundick, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, John M. Peterson, and Carol L.C.
Verdoia, Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES JAMES Z. DAVIS, J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., and
PAMELA T. GREENWOOD.1
PER CURIAM:
¶1 N.V. (Father) appeals the termination of his parental rights
to his child, N.V. We affirm.

In re. N.V.
20140141-CA 2 2014 UT App 94
¶2 “[I]n order to overturn the juvenile court’s decision, the
result must be against the clear weight of the evidence or leave the
appellate court with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake
has been made.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435 (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). We “review the juvenile
court’s factual findings based upon the clearly erroneous
standard.” In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680. A finding
of fact is clearly erroneous when, in light of the evidence
supporting the finding, it is against the clear weight of the
evidence. Id. Therefore, “[w]hen a foundation for the court’s
decision exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not engage
in a reweighing of the evidence.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12.
¶3 Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the findings that he
neglected or abused [N.V.]; that he was an unfit or
incompetent parent; that he had neglected, willfully
refused, or been unable or unwilling to remedy the
circumstances that caused the child to be in an out-
of-home placement; and that there is a substantial
likelihood that [Father] would not be capable of
exercising proper and effective parental care in the
near future.
Pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-6-507, the findings of a single
enumerated ground will support the termination of parental rights.
See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507 (LexisNexis 2012). Therefore, if
sufficient evidence supports any of the grounds for termination
found by the juvenile court, the termination is appropriate.
¶4 Father does not challenge either of the additional grounds
found by the juvenile court to support the termination of parental
rights. The juvenile court also found that Father experienced a
failure of parental adjustment “by remaining unable or unwilling
within a reasonable time to substantially correct the circumstances,
conduct, or conditions that led to placement of the child outside of

In re. N.V.
20140141-CA 3 2014 UT App 94
the home.” See id. § 78A-6-507(1)(e); id. § 78A-6-502(2). The juvenile
court further found that Father made “only token efforts to support
or communicate with his minor child, and/or to eliminate the risk
of serious physical, mental or emotional abuse; and/or to avoid
being an unfit parent.” See id. § 78A-6-507(1)(f). Either of these
unchallenged grounds is sufficient to support termination.
¶5 In addition, the juvenile court’s finding that Father had
neglected, willfully refused, or had been unable to remedy the
circumstances that caused N.V. to be in an out-of-home placement
was supported by sufficient evidence. See id. § 78A-6-507(1)(d). The
juvenile court’s related finding that Father would not be capable of
exercising proper and effective parental care in the near future was
also amply supported. See id. Father was incarcerated for all but
five weeks of the child welfare case, had three visits with N.V., and
sent two or three cards. Although Father voluntarily completed
classes available to him while incarcerated, including a parenting
class, he did not complete the inpatient drug treatment program
ordered as a condition of his release on probation in his criminal
case. At the time of the termination trial, he was again incarcerated
after a probation violation, and he remained unable to care for N.V.
Father had no housing or employment and no present ability to
provide N.V. with a suitable home.
¶6 Father’s remaining challenge is to the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the finding that it would be in N.V.’s best
interest to terminate parental rights and allow him to be adopted
into a stable, secure family where his needs could be met. Father
had been incarcerated for all but five weeks of the case. He had
visited N.V. three times since the child’s removal. Father argued
that his completion of classes available at the Adult Detention
Center was evidence of his efforts to be an effective parent.
However, when he was released on probation and specifically
ordered to complete an inpatient drug treatment program, he did
not enroll or complete treatment. He was returned to jail based on
a probation violation with a projected release date of March 2014,
when he would again be on probation. N.V. was living in a

In re. N.V.
20140141-CA 4 2014 UT App 94
prospective adoptive home where he was doing well, he was
integrated into the family, and his needs were being met. That
family wished to adopt N.V. if he became available. The best
interests finding was also supported by sufficient evidence.
¶7 Because “a foundation for the court’s decision exists in the
evidence,” we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of Father’s
parental rights. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435.