In re B.C.

2016 UT App 208
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
I N THE INTEREST OF B.C.,
A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
C.S.,
Appellant,
v.
R.C.,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20160604-CA
Filed October 6, 2016
Fourth District Juvenile Court, American Fork Department
The Honorable Suchada P. Bazzelle
No. 1102849
C.S., Appellant Pro Se
Ronald D. Wilkinson and Marianne P. Card,
Attorneys for Appellee
Before JUDGES M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN , K ATE A. TOOMEY , and
DAVID N. M ORTENSEN .
PER CURIAM:
¶1 	C.S. (Mother) appeals the order terminating her parental
rights in B.C. We affirm.
¶2 	“Whether a parent’s rights should be terminated presents
a mixed question of law and fact.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12,
171 P.3d 435. “Because of the factually intense nature of such an
inquiry, the juvenile court’s decision should be afforded a high
degree of deference.” Id. “Thus, in order to overturn the juvenile
court’s decision ‘[t]he result must be against the clear weight of
the evidence or leave the appellate court with a firm and definite

In re B.C.
20160604-CA 	2 	2016 UT App 208
conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Id. (alteration in
original) 	(citation 	and 	internal 	quotation 	marks 	omitted).
Further, “[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.” Id. “We grant such deference to the juvenile
court’s findings because of its superior position to judge parties’
and 	witnesses’ 	credibility 	and 	personalities 	and 	because 	of
juvenile court judges’ special training, experience, and interest in
this field. . . .” In re T.M., 2006 UT App 435, ¶ 14, 147 P.3d 529
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
¶3 	Under Utah Code section 78A-6-507, the finding of a
single ground will support termination of parental rights. See
Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507 (LexisNexis 2012). The juvenile
court found several grounds to support termination of Mother’s
parental 	rights. 	The 	juvenile 	court 	concluded 	that 	Mother
abandoned B.C., see id. § 78A-6-507(1)(a); neglected B.C., see id.
§ 78A-6-507(1)(b); was an unfit or incompetent parent, see id.
§ 78A-6-507(1)(c); and made only token efforts to support or
communicate with B.C., see id. § 78A-6-507(1)(f). After finding
grounds for termination, the court concluded it was in the
child’s best interest that Mother’s parental rights be terminated.
See id. § 78A-6-503(12) (LexisNexis Supp. 2016).
¶4 	Mother raises two claims in her petition on appeal. First,
she claims that the juvenile court erred in failing to allow her to
admit evidence, including her exhibit book. Second, she claims
that the juvenile court erred in stating that she abandoned B.C.
We construe the latter claim as a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence to support the ground of abandonment.
¶5 	The record does not support Mother’s claim that “[her]
evidence was not allowed nor [her] evidence book.” Mother was
represented by counsel at trial who cross-examined Father’s
witnesses and also presented the testimony of eleven witnesses
during Mother’s case. The juvenile court properly excluded

In re B.C.
20160604-CA 	3 	2016 UT App 208
some 	testimony 	and 	evidence 	during 	Mother’s 	case 	as
cumulative of evidence and testimony that had already been
received by the court. The juvenile court also excluded some
exhibits that were not produced in pretrial disclosures in this
case. However, counsel for the parties reached a stipulation
regarding the admission of the majority of Mother’s exhibits.
Following that stipulation and admission of exhibits, Mother did
not preserve any objection to failure to admit any additional
evidence. See State v. McNeil, 2013 UT App 134, ¶ 23, 302 P.3d
844 (“A claim is not preserved for appeal if a party initially
objects but later . . . abandons the objection and stipulates to the
court’s 	intended 	action.”)). 	Accordingly, 	Mother 	has 	not
preserved any claim on appeal regarding the refusal to admit
evidence.
¶6 	We construe Mother’s second claim as a challenge to the
juvenile 	court’s 	determination 	that 	Mother 	abandoned 	B.C.
“Utah law requires a court to make two distinct findings before
terminating a parent-child relationship.” In re R.A.J., 1999 UT
App 329, ¶ 7, 991 P.2d 1118. “First, the court must find that the
parent is below some minimum threshold of fitness, such as a
finding that a parent is unfit or incompetent based on any of the
grounds for termination” in section 78A-6-507. Id. (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). “Second, the court must find
that the best interests and welfare of the child are served by
terminating the parent’s parental rights.” Id. On appeal, Mother
claims 	that 	the 	juvenile 	court 	erred 	in 	finding 	that 	she
abandoned B.C. However, Mother has not challenged any of the
remaining grounds relied upon by the juvenile court in its
decision. Any of those unchallenged grounds is sufficient to
support 	the 	juvenile 	court’s 	determination 	that 	there 	were
grounds for the termination of parental rights. See Utah Code
Ann. 	§ 	78A-6-507. 	Because 	Mother 	does 	not 	challenge 	the
grounds of neglect, unfitness, or token efforts, this court need
not 	review her 	claim 	that 	the 	evidence 	was 	insufficient 	to

In re B.C.
20160604-CA 	4 	2016 UT App 208
support the grounds of abandonment. Mother also does not
challenge the best interest finding.
¶7 	Furthermore, the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions
regarding Mother’s abandonment of B.C. are supported by the
evidence. Mother had B.C. in her care for approximately the first
year of his life before placing him with her cousin and his wife,
who believed that Mother would allow them to adopt B.C. After
roughly 	eighteen 	months, 	Mother 	removed 	B.C. 	from 	her
cousins’ 	care 	and 	placed 	him 	in 	the 	care 	of 	Mother’s
grandparents. The juvenile court found that Mother did not
manifest a firm intention to resume physical custody of B.C. See
id. Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-508(1)(a). The juvenile court further
found, “Although it appears that she did have some sporadic
contact with [B.C.] during his placements with others, they were
in the nature of token efforts and were wholly insufficient to
maintain a parent-child bond with such a young child.” In
addition, despite receiving child support for B.C. from Father
through the Office of Recovery Services, Mother kept that money
rather than providing it to B.C.’s caregivers. Mother also failed
to obtain appropriate medical care for B.C. Based upon the
foregoing, the juvenile court appropriately applied the test for
determining 	abandonment, 	finding 	that 	Mother’s 	conscious
disregard of her parental obligations toward B.C. led to the
destruction of any parent-child relationship. See In re R.A.F., 863
P.2d 1331, 1334 (Utah Ct. App. 1993).
¶8 	Because “a foundation for the court’s decision exists in the
evidence,” and because the record does not support Mother’s
claims, we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating Mother’s
parental rights. See In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435.