In re K.C.

2016 UT App 5
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
S TATE OF U TAH , IN THE INTEREST OF K.C.,
A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
D.C.,
Appellant,
v.
S TATE OF U TAH ,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20150728-CA
Filed January 14, 2016
Third District Juvenile Court, West Jordan Department
The Honorable Tupakk A.G. Renteria
No. 1075966
Jason A. Pietryga, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys
for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES GREGORY K. O RME and J. F REDERIC VOROS JR ., and
JUSTICE JOHN A. PEARCE.1
PER CURIAM:
¶1 	D.C. (Father) appeals the order terminating his parental
rights to K.C. We affirm.
1. Justice John A. Pearce sat by special assignment as authorized
by law. See generally Utah R. Jud. Admin. 3-108(3).

In re K.C.
20150728-CA 	2 	2016 UT App 5
¶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. See 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 	The juvenile court found multiple grounds supporting the
termination of Father’s parental rights. Pursuant to Utah Code
section 78A-6-507, the finding of a single enumerated ground
will support the termination of parental rights. See Utah Code
Ann. § 78A-6-507 (LexisNexis 2012). On appeal, Father does not
challenge the juvenile court’s determination that he abandoned
and neglected his child, or that he was an unfit parent as defined
by Utah Code section 78A-5-507(1). See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-
507(1). 	Instead, 	Father 	limits 	his 	appeal 	to 	challenging 	the
juvenile court’s determination that it was in the child’s best
interest to terminate his parental rights.
¶4 	If the juvenile court determines that there are sufficient
grounds to terminate parental rights, in order to actually do so,
the court must next find that the best interest and welfare of the
child are served by terminating the parent’s parental rights. See
In re R.A.J., 1999 UT App 329, ¶ 7, 991 P.2d 1118. In conducting
the best interest analysis, the juvenile court determined that
Father 	has 	an 	extensive 	criminal 	history, 	and 	he 	has 	been
incarcerated for the duration of K.C.’s life. Father’s incarceration
rendered him unable to participate in reunification services with
K.C. The juvenile court also determined that Father’s extensive

In re K.C.
20150728-CA 	3 	2016 UT App 5
criminal actions implied a conscious disregard of the obligations
owed by a parent to a child, leading to the destruction of the
parent child relationship. Furthermore, Father failed to provide
emotional support, care, or love to K.C. during the entirety of
K.C.’s life.
¶5 	Conversely, 	K.C. 	has 	been 	living 	with 	his 	maternal
grandfather and his wife (Grandparents). K.C. initially lived
with Grandparents when he was only two weeks old. After K.C.
was removed from his mother’s custody the first time, he went
to live with Grandparents again. K.C. was then transitioned to
his mother’s care while she was in the House of Hope. After the
second removal, K.C. returned to live with Grandparents. Since
living 	with 	Grandparents, 	K.C.’s 	behavioral 	problems 	have
improved, and he has become more affectionate. Grandparents
wish to adopt K.C. so that they may continue to provide him
with the support, love, and stability that they have provided to
K.C. throughout his life.
¶6 	Father 	fails 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	the 	juvenile 	court’s
determination 	that 	it 	is 	in 	K.C.’s best 	interest to terminate
Father’s 	parental 	rights 	is 	against 	the 	clear 	weight 	of 	the
evidence. Because “a foundation for the court’s decision exists in
the evidence,” we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating
Father’s parental rights. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d
435.