In re D.W. (H.M. v. State)

1. The Honorable Judith M. Billings, Senior Judge, sat by special
assignment as authorized by law. See generally Utah Code Jud.
Admin. R. 11-201(6).
2014 UT App 146
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF D.W., A PERSON UNDER
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
H.M.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20140297-CA
Filed June 26, 2014
Fourth District Juvenile Court, Provo Department
The Honorable Suchada P. Bazzelle
No. 1078003
Erik G. Jacobson, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys
for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, STEPHEN L. ROTH, and JUDITH
M. BILLINGS.1
PER CURIAM:
¶1 H.M. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights in D.W. We affirm.

In re D.W.
2. Termination is appropriate if any single ground is supported and
if the juvenile court also finds that termination is in the child’s best
interest. Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-503(12) (LexisNexis). In this case,
the juvenile court found that termination was in the child’s best
interest. Mother has not challenged the juvenile court’s finding
regarding best interest, instead limiting the appeal to a challenge
of the grounds for termination.
20140297-CA 2 2014 UT App 146
¶2 Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to
support the termination of her parental rights. A juvenile court’s
findings of fact will not be overturned unless they are clearly
erroneous. In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680. A finding
of fact is clearly erroneous only when, in light of the evidence
supporting the finding, it is against the clear weight of the
evidence. Id. In reviewing a juvenile court’s order, this court “will
not disturb the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions unless the
evidence clearly preponderates against the findings as made or the
court has abused its discretion.” In re R.A.J., 1999 UT App 329, ¶ 6,
991 P.2d 1118. “When a foundation for the [juvenile] 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, 171
P.3d 435.
¶3 Additionally, pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-6-507, the
finding of any single ground is sufficient to warrant termination of
parental rights. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1) (LexisNexis
2012) (providing that the court may terminate parental rights if it
finds any one of the grounds listed); In re F.C. III, 2003 UT App 397,
¶ 6, 81 P.3d 790 (noting that any single ground is sufficient to
terminate parental rights). As a result, if there is sufficient evidence
to support any one of the grounds for termination found by the
juvenile court, the termination of Mother’s rights is appropriate.2
¶4 D.W. was removed from Mother in December 2012, after the
Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) received reports of
illegal drug use by Mother and others living in the house. A service

In re D.W.
3. Mother had three children removed in 2012. Only D.W. is the
subject of this termination proceeding and appeal.
20140297-CA 3 2014 UT App 146
plan was developed for Mother, which included critical
components of drug treatment and housing stability. Mother was
in drug treatment for several months and had made substantial
progress, and in fact had been recommended for a trial home
placement with her children.3
¶5 In December 2013, however, Mother again tested positive
for methamphetamine. As a result, the trial home placement was
cancelled, which also resulted in Mother’s loss of a housing
voucher. By the time of trial, Mother had yet another positive
methamphetamine result and was homeless. Although she was in
recovery management, a late stage of drug treatment, testimony at
trial indicated that Mother should have been in a more intensive
level of treatment based on her recent relapses. Recovery
management was not an appropriate treatment level for Mother’s
then-current drug issues.
¶6 The evidence presented at trial that Mother was regressing
in treatment and had no stable housing appropriate for D.W.
specifically supports grounds for termination of parental rights
under Utah Code section 78A-6-507(1)(d). Under that section,
parental rights may be terminated if the juvenile court finds that
the child is being cared for in an out-of-home placement supervised
by DCFS, that the parent has been unable to remedy the
circumstances that led the child to be in the out-of-home placement,
and that “there is a substantial likelihood that the parent will not
be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care in the
near future.” Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1)(d).
¶7 In this case, Mother was unable to complete drug treatment
and in fact required a higher level of treatment. She was homeless
at the time of trial. As a result, Mother was not able to safely parent
D.W. Further, there was a substantial likelihood that Mother would

In re D.W.
20140297-CA 4 2014 UT App 146
not be able to properly parent in the near future because drug
treatment requirements would take additional time, and there was
no indication that Mother had stable housing available. D.W. was
in an out-of-home placement under DCFS supervision. The
evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that
termination was warranted under Utah Code section 78A-6-
507(1)(d). Because finding any single ground is sufficient to
terminate parental rights, we do not address Mother’s challenges
to the other grounds for termination found by the juvenile court.
¶8 Affirmed.