In re K.R...

2023 UT App 75
THE UTAH C OURT OF APPEALS
S TATE OF U TAH , IN THE INTEREST OF K.R. AND R.B.,
PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
R.S.,
Appellant,
v.
S TATE OF U TAH ,
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 M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN F ORSTER , DAVID N.
M ORTENSEN , and A MY J. O LIVER .
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.
20230255-CA 	2 	2023 UT App 75
¶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

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

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

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

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

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

In re K.R.
20230255-CA 	8 	2023 UT App 75
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.