In re C.U. (N.U. v. State)

2013 UT App 268
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF C.U., A PERSON UNDER
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE
____________
N.U.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20130620-CA
Filed November 15, 2013
Fourth District Juvenile Court, Provo Department
The Honorable Kay A. Lindsay
No. 1074075
David R. Boyer, Attorney for Appellant
John E. Swallow and John M. Peterson, Attorneys
for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, JAMES Z. DAVIS, AND
CAROLYN B. MCHUGH.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 N.U. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights.
We affirm.
¶2 “[I]n order to overturn the juvenile court’s decision [to
terminate a person’s parental rights,] ‘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.,

In re C.U.
20130620-CA 2 2013 UT App 268
2007 UT 82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435 (citation 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 only when, in light of the evidence
supporting the finding, it is against the clear weight of the
evidence. See id. Additionally, a juvenile court has broad discretion
regarding judgments based on the juvenile court’s specialized
experience and training, as well as its ability to judge credibility
firsthand. Id. Finally, “[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 Mother first asserts that the juvenile court’s findings that she
failed to comply with her service plan and that the Division of
Child and Family Services (DCFS) made reasonable efforts to
reunify Mother and her child were clearly erroneous. Specifically,
she asserts that these findings were erroneous because the juvenile
court had previously ordered that reunification services were not
appropriate and, therefore, were not offered to her. At first blush,
Mother’s argument seems to have merit. However, when the
record is reviewed as a whole, it is clear that these findings relate
to the fact that Mother was previously offered reasonable services
in regard to her older children and failed to take advantage of
those services. At the time of C.U.’s birth, Mother’s other children
were already in DCFS custody, and Mother had been subject to a
service plan meant to reunify her with those children. However,
the juvenile court terminated those reunification services as to the
older children prior to C.U.’s birth due to Mother’s failure to
comply with the service plan. It was after this that the juvenile
court declined to offer services to Mother in regard to C.U. because
of Mother’s prior failure to take proper advantage of the services
previously offered. Thus, while the findings of the juvenile court
could have been more clear, under the circumstances, they were
not clearly erroneous once it is understood that they referred to the
service plan in place prior to C.U.’s birth.

In re C.U.
1. Pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-6-507, the finding of any
single ground for termination is sufficient to warrant termination
of parental rights. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1) (LexisNexis
2012); 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 of the grounds
for termination found by the juvenile court, the termination of
Mother’s rights is appropriate.
20130620-CA 3 2013 UT App 268
¶4 Mother next asserts that there was insufficient evidence for
the juvenile court to determine that grounds existed to justify
termination of Mother’s parental rights and that it was in the
child’s best interest to terminate her parental rights. The juvenile
court found several grounds to support termination of Mother’s
parental rights, including unfitness. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-1
507(1)(c) (LexisNexis 2012). The evidence in the record supports the
juvenile court’s determination that Mother was unfit. Utah Code
section 78A-6-508(2)(a) states that in determining whether a parent
is unfit or incompetent, the juvenile court shall consider “mental
illness or mental deficiency of the parent that renders the parent
unable to care for the immediate and continuing physical or
emotional needs of the child for extended periods of time.” Id.
§ 78A-6-508(2)(a). At trial, sufficient evidence was presented to
establish that Mother had both mental illness issues and cognitive
deficiencies that rendered her unable to care for her children.
Specifically, Mother had been diagnosed as “severely and
persistently mentally ill.” Further, Mother had “cognitive deficits
which would render her unable to independently care for herself.”
As a result of the mental illness and cognitive disorders, Mother
required “consistent assistance” in performing her everyday living
activities. Accordingly, despite her love for her child and her desire
to be a good parent, Mother’s mental illness and cognitive
disorders prevented her from caring for the physical and emotional
needs of her child. Thus, evidence in the record adequately
supports the juvenile court’s determination that Mother was unfit.

In re C.U.
20130620-CA 4 2013 UT App 268
¶5 In addition, the evidence was sufficient to establish that
termination was in the child’s best interest. As explained above, the
evidence demonstrated that Mother was not in a position to parent
C.U. and there was no evidence demonstrating if and when she
might be able to parent C.U. Conversely, the child had been in a
placement for several months with a family that loved him and
provided him with the stability and security that he needed.
Further, the foster family desired to adopt C.U. The evidence
supports the juvenile court’s determination that it was in C.U.’s
best interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights in order to free
him for adoption into a stable home.
¶6 Affirmed.