In re J.Q. (C.L. v. State)

2014 UT App 83
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF J.Q., A PERSON UNDER
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
C.L.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20140092-CA
Filed April 17, 2014
Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Charles D. Behrens
No. 1081344
Sheleigh A. Harding, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson, Attorneys
for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES JAMES Z. DAVIS, J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., AND
JOHN A. PEARCE.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 C.L. (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 J.Q.
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.
20140092-CA 2 2014 UT App 83
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 asserts that there was insufficient evidence for the
juvenile court to determine that grounds existed to justify
termination of her 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. The evidence in the record supports the juvenile court’s1
determination that Mother was unable to remedy the
circumstances that caused J.Q. to be placed in an out-of-home
placement. See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-507(1)(d) (LexisNexis
2012). J.Q. was removed because of Mother’s drug use. Specifically,
immediately prior to the removal, Mother’s newborn child, who is
not the subject of this appeal, tested positive for amphetamine and
marijuana, indicating Mother’s use of those drugs during her
pregnancy. This prompted J.Q.’s removal. Reunification services
were provided to Mother; however, during the course of her

In re J.Q.
20140092-CA 3 2014 UT App 83
service plan, Mother submitted to only twenty-eight of fifty-three
drug tests despite being told that any missed tests would be
considered “dirty.” Further, of the twenty-eight tests Mother took,
three were voided because the samples were too diluted and
sixteen were positive for illegal drugs, including amphetamine,
methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana. Mother also admitted
to two other relapses after reunification services ended.
¶4 In regard to treatment, Mother completed the required
substance abuse assessment. However, because Mother was not
truthful concerning her history of drug use during that assessment,
she did not receive the appropriate level of substance abuse
treatment required, i.e., residential treatment. In regard to the
treatment Mother did begin, Mother was sporadic in her
attendance, missing some appointments then not going at all after
reunification services were terminated. Mother eventually took a
second substance abuse assessment that recommended residential
treatment. At the time of trial, however, Mother had not yet begun
such treatment as she was waiting for space to open in a residential
facility. Thus, at the time of trial, Mother had tested positive for
drugs on numerous occasions and had not yet begun the level of
treatment needed to address her addictions. Further, because
Mother had not begun a residential treatment program, there was
a substantial likelihood that Mother would not be capable of
exercising proper and effective parental care in the near future.
Accordingly, evidence in the record adequately supports the
juvenile court’s determination that Mother was unable to remedy
the circumstances that caused J.Q. to be placed in an out-of-home
placement.
¶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
J.Q. due to her ongoing drug issues and lack of appropriate
treatment. Conversely, J.Q. 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

In re J.Q.
20140092-CA 4 2014 UT App 83
desired to adopt J.Q. The evidence supports the juvenile court’s
determination that it was in J.Q.’s best interest to terminate
Mother’s parental rights in order to allow his adoption into a stable
home. Similarly, the evidence of Mother’s current substance abuse
problem and lack of appropriate treatment, coupled with the
child’s current need for stability, provided a sufficient basis for the
juvenile court to conclude that it was strictly necessary to terminate
Mother’s parental rights.
¶6 Affirmed.