In re Z.M. (S.M. & K.M. 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 118
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF Z.M., A.M., E.M., G.M., N.M.,
S.M., AND N.M., PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
S.M. AND K.M.,
Appellants,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20140199-CA
Filed May 30, 2014
Fourth District Juvenile Court, American Fork Department
The Honorable Suchada P. Bazzelle
No. 1073019
Erik G. Jacobson, Attorney for Appellants
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys
for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN,
AND SENIOR JUDGE PAMELA T. GREENWOOD.1
PER CURIAM:
¶1 S.M. and K.M. (Parents) appeal the juvenile court’s February
21, 2013 order terminating their parental rights. We affirm.

In re Z.M.
20140199-CA 2 2014 UT App 118
¶2 Parents assert that the juvenile court erred by admitting
records from the Department of Occupational and Professional
Licensing (DOPL), which identified their prescription drug use. The
juvenile court may consider any information that is relevant to the
disposition of a child welfare case, including reliable hearsay and
opinions. See In re J.F., 2014 Utah App 82, ¶ 6. In reviewing the
admissibility of hearsay, legal conclusions are reviewed for
correctness, factual determinations are reviewed for clear error,
and the ultimate question of admissibility is reviewed for an abuse
of discretion. See In re C.D.L., 2011 UT App 55, ¶ 29, 250 P.3d 69.
¶3 The juvenile court previously ordered Parents to sign a
DOPL waiver so the court would have access to DOPL records
bearing on their prescription drug use. At trial, the juvenile court
determined that the DOPL records were admissible as rebuttal
evidence under rule 901 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Rule 901
provides that in order for the proponent to authenticate or identify
an item of evidence, there must be sufficient evidence to support a
finding that the item is what it purports to be. See Utah R. Evid.
901(a). Rule 901(b)(4) provides that distinctive characteristics may
be considered in authenticating or identifying evidence when
construed with other factors. See id. R. 901(b)(4). The juvenile court
considered several distinctive markings on them, which identified
the records as originating from DOPL, including DOPL’s facsimile
transmittal information. The juvenile court also witnessed the
Parents sign DOPL releases in court and noted that the DOPL
records were received in response to the submission of these
releases. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the
juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting the DOPL records.
¶4 Parents next assert that the juvenile court erred in receiving
their adjudicated criminal histories under rule 403 of the Utah
Rules of Evidence. “A trial court has broad discretion to admit or
exclude evidence and its determination typically will only be
disturbed if it constitutes an abuse of discretion.” In re S.A.K., 2003
UT App 87, ¶ 9, 67 P.3d 1037. We review the trial court’s decision
to admit or exclude evidence under rule 403 of the Utah Rules of

In re Z.M.
20140199-CA 3 2014 UT App 118
Evidence for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Cooper, 2011 UT
App 412, ¶ 6, 275 P.3d 250. We will not overturn the trial court’s
determination as to admissibility “unless it is beyond the limits of
reasonability.” Diversified Holdings, LC v. Turner, 2002 UT 129, ¶ 6,
63 P.3d 686.
¶5 Rule 403 provides, in relevant part, that a court may exclude
relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed
by a danger of unfair prejudice. See Utah R. Evid. 403. Parents’
criminal histories are relevant in considering the termination of
their parental rights. See In re A.C.M., 2009 UT 30, ¶ 25, 221 P.3d
185. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the
admission of evidence of Parents’ adjudicated criminal charges.
¶6 Parents also assert that the juvenile court erred by taking
judicial notice of their pending criminal charges. Rule 201 provides
that a court may take judicial notice of adjudicated facts. See Utah
R. Evid. 201(a). Even assuming that the juvenile court erred by
taking judicial notice of Parents’ pending criminal charges, we
nevertheless uphold the juvenile court’s order terminating their
parental rights because the inclusion of this evidence was harmless.
“Harmless error is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that
there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the
proceedings.” In re A.M., 2009 UT App 118, ¶ 21, 208 P.3d 1058; see
also In re J.C., 808 P.2d 1131, 1136 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (concluding
that harmless error doctrine applied to appellant’s claim that
juvenile court improperly admitted hearsay evidence when other
non-hearsay evidence supported the juvenile court’s conclusions).
Here, as identified below, the court received sufficient admissible
evidence justifying its termination decision.
¶7 Finally, although Parents do not challenge the sufficiency of
the evidence supporting the termination of their parental rights, we
note that the record supports the juvenile court’s decision.
Pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-6-507, the finding of a single
ground for the termination of parental rights enumerated in section
78A-6-507 is sufficient to warrant the termination of parental rights.

In re Z.M.
20140199-CA 4 2014 UT App 118
See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1). If there are sufficient grounds
to terminate parental rights, in order to actually do so, “the court
must [next] find that the best interests and welfare of the child are
served by terminating the parents’ parental rights.” In re R.A.J.,
1999 UT App 329, ¶ 7, 991 P.2d 1118. The record supports the
juvenile court’s determination that Parents are unfit or incompetent
parents. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1)(c). The record also
demonstrates that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate
their parental rights.
¶8 Affirmed.