In re S.A.

2016 UT App 191
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
S TATE OF U TAH , IN THE INTEREST OF S.A.,
A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
S.A.,
Appellant,
v.
S TATE OF U TAH ,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20160411-CA
Filed September 9, 2016
Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Kimberly K. Hornak
No. 1125253
Colleen K. Coebergh, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys
for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES GREGORY K. O RME, J. F REDERIC VOROS JR ., and
S TEPHEN L. R OTH .
PER CURIAM:
¶1 	S.A. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s disposition order
in a protective supervision case.1 Following oral arguments on
1. The State’s petition sought an adjudication that the child was
within 	the 	jurisdiction 	of 	the 	juvenile 	court 	as 	an 	abused,
neglected, 	or 	dependent 	child 	and 	an 	order 	for 	protective
supervision services in the home of the parents. The disposition
(continued…)

In re S.A.
20160411-CA 	2 	2016 UT App 191
Father’s 	petition 	and 	the 	State’s 	and 	Guardian 	ad 	Litem’s
responses, this court requested supplemental briefing on the
following issue:
Whether the requirement in the disposition order
that 	Father 	submit 	to 	a 	domestic 	violence
assessment and follow its recommendation is a
“reasonable condition to be complied with” by
Father under Utah Code section 78A-6-117(2)(p)(i),
where 	the 	child 	is 	within 	the 	juvenile 	court’s
jurisdiction as a dependent child under Utah Code
section 78A-6-103.
Father, the State, and the Guardian ad Litem each filed the
requested memoranda. Father also moved the court to allow full
briefing 	under 	rule 	58(a) 	of 	the 	Utah 	Rules 	of 	Appellate
Procedure. Based upon a review of the supplemental briefing,
this court determines that further briefing will not materially aid
the dispositional process and denies the motion for full briefing.
¶2 	The 	State’s petition 	for 	protective 	supervision 	sought
(1) an adjudication that the child is an abused, neglected, or
dependent child within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court,
and (2) an order of “protective supervision services or other
appropriate services over the child in the home of the parents.”
Utah 	Code 	Ann. 	§ 78A-6-105(33) 	(LexisNexis 	Supp. 	2016)
(defining protective supervision as “a legal status created by
court order following an adjudication on the ground of abuse,
(…continued)
order in this case is final and appealable because it granted all of
the 	relief 	requested 	in 	the 	State’s 	petition 	for 	protective
supervision. See In re K.F., 2009 UT 4, ¶ 36, 201 P.3d 985 (“To be
final, a juvenile court order must ‘end[] the current juvenile
proceedings, 	leaving 	no 	question 	open 	for 	further 	judicial
action.’”(alteration in original)(citation omitted)).

In re S.A.
20160411-CA 	3 	2016 UT App 191
neglect, or dependency, whereby the minor is permitted to
remain in the minor’s home, and supervision and assistance to
correct” that situation is provided by an agency designated by
the court). The juvenile court found that the facts did not
establish abuse or neglect but entered an adjudication order
stating that the child was dependent as to Father.2 A dependent
child includes a child “who is . . . without proper care through
no fault of the child’s parent.” Id. § 78A-6-105(11).
¶3 	At a disposition hearing held after an adjudication of a
child as abused, neglected, or dependent, and therefore within
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the court may enter an
order 	of 	“protective 	supervision,” 	id. 	§ 78A-6-312(1)(c)(i), 	or
make “any of the dispositions described in Section 78A-6-117,”
id. § 78A-6-312(1)(a). Section 78A-6-117(2)(p)(i), states,
In support of a decree under Section 78A-6-103, the
court may order reasonable conditions to be complied
with by a minor’s parents or guardian, a minor, a
minor’s custodian, or any other person who has
been made a party to the proceedings. Conditions
may include:
(A) parent-time by the parents or one parent;
(B) restrictions on the minor’s associates;
(C) restrictions 	on 	the 	minor’s 	occupation
and other activities; and
(D) requirements to be observed by the parents or
custodian.
Id. § 78A-6-117(2)(p)(i) (emphases added).
2. After the child’s mother admitted the allegations of the State’s
petition, the juvenile court entered an adjudication that the child
was neglected by the mother. Nothing in this decision shall be
construed as altering any orders from the juvenile court directed
to the child’s mother, who is not a party to this appeal.

In re S.A.
20160411-CA 	4 	2016 UT App 191
¶4 	The initial service plan that the Division of Child and
Family 	Services 	drafted 	included 	requirements 	that 	Father
undergo 	a 	mental 	health 	assessment, 	a 	domestic 	violence
assessment, and a substance abuse assessment. Father objected
to these requirements “as being beyond the scope of requirements
to be observed by a non-offending parent.” The juvenile court
sustained Father’s objection to the requirements for substance
abuse 	and 	mental 	health 	assessments, 	but 	it 	overruled 	the
objection to the directive that Father complete a domestic violence
assessment and comply with any recommendations. Citing its
findings from the earlier adjudication hearing, the juvenile court
stated,
I made a specific finding in paragraph 14
that 	there 	was 	a 	concern 	about 	[the 	child’s]
statement that he sees his mom and dad fighting a
lot, and sometimes he sees them hit each other. The
Court finds the parents have been arguing in the
home. Parents have hit each other on occasion in
the presence of [the child]; but under the statute it
does not rise to the level of neglect.
So I believe under that finding and under
Section 	117 	and 	the 	specific 	paragraph 	cited,
[(2)(p)(i)] that I can order reasonable conditions to
be complied with by [the child’s] father, which
would 	be 	requirements 	to 	be 	observed 	by 	the
parent or custodian under [(2)(p)(i)(D)]. . . . So I
think it would be appropriate to order that the
father . . . follow through with a domestic violence
assessment 	and 	follow 	through 	with 	any
recommendations.
¶5 	Father appeals this disposition order, claiming that the
juvenile court erred in requiring him to complete a domestic
violence 	assessment 	and 	comply 	with 	its 	recommendations
because there was no neglect adjudication as to Father and the

In re S.A.
20160411-CA 	5 	2016 UT App 191
juvenile court found no fault by Father. The juvenile court’s
adjudication that the child was dependent as to Father is not
challenged on appeal. That dependency adjudication rests, in
part, upon the factual finding that the parents hit each other in
the child’s presence. That factual finding also is not challenged
on appeal. Because of the factually intense nature of the juvenile
court’s inquiry, we afford the juvenile court’s decision “a high
degree of deference.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435.
Thus, we do not overturn the juvenile court’s decision unless “it
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. “When a foundation for the court’s decision
exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not engage in a
reweighing of the evidence.” Id.
¶6 	The adjudication of a child as dependent, neglected, or
abused forms the basis for juvenile court jurisdiction, thereby
making all of the dispositional options listed in section 78A-6-
117 available to that court. See In re M.J., 2011 UT App 398, ¶ 49,
266 P.3d 850.
Once the juvenile court has adjudicated the child as
falling 	under 	its 	jurisdiction, 	it 	has 	ongoing
jurisdiction over that child. See Utah Code Ann.
§ 78A-6-304(1)[LexisNexis 2012]; In re K.F., 2009 UT
4, ¶¶ 22-24, 201 P.3d 985. With this continuing
jurisdiction, 	the 	court 	has 	myriad 	dispositional
choices available to it, see Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-
117(2)[LexisNexis Supp. 2015], from the minimally
intrusive option of protective supervision, see id.
§ 78A-6-117(2)(a)(i), to the more drastic remedy of
removal, see id. § 78A-6-117(2)(c)(i)(A).
Id. From the time of the adjudication of the child as within
juvenile court jurisdiction, the court is “free to apply any of the
dispositional options available to it.” Id. ¶ 50.

In re S.A.
20160411-CA 	6 	2016 UT App 191
¶7 	Under section 78A-6-117(2), the juvenile court may impose
conditions on a parent so long as the conditions are “reasonable.”
See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-117(2)(p)(i) (LexisNexis Supp. 2016).
The 	condition 	that 	Father 	complete 	a 	domestic 	violence
assessment and comply with any recommendations is reasonable
under the circumstances of this case. First, the condition 	is
reasonably related to the juvenile court’s factual finding that
“the parents have hit each other on occasion in the presence of
[the 	child].” 	Second, 	the 	condition 	is 	proportionate 	to 	the
concern raised by that finding. Finally, assessing and addressing
any potential for domestic violence is reasonably calculated to
serve the best interest of the child.
¶8 	Because “a foundation for the court’s decision exists in the
evidence,” we affirm the juvenile court’s disposition order. In re
B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12.