In re A.K.

2022 UT App 148
THE UTAH C OURT OF APPEALS
S TATE OF U TAH , IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.,
A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
C.K.,
Appellant,
v.
S TATE OF U TAH ,
Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20220671-CA
Filed December 30, 2022
Second District Juvenile Court, Ogden Department
The Honorable Michelle E. Heward
No. 1116027
Freyja Johnson and Emily Adams,
Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson,
Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
Before JUDGES GREGORY K. O RME, R YAN M. HARRIS , and
R YAN D. TENNEY .
PER CURIAM:
¶1 	C.K. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating
his parental rights in A.K. (Child). We affirm.
¶2 	“To terminate parental rights, a juvenile court must make
two separate findings.” In re C.T., 2018 UT App 233, ¶ 12, 438 P.3d
100 (quotation simplified). “First, a court must find by clear and
convincing evidence that there is at least one statutory ground for

In re A.K.
20220671-CA 	2 	2022 UT App 148
termination.” Id. (quotation simplified). “Second, a court must
find that termination of the parent’s rights is in the best interests
of the child.” Id. (quotation simplified). A court may terminate a
parent’s rights only if it finds that termination is strictly necessary
for the best interest of a child. Id. “We review deferentially a lower
court’s best-interest determination, and will overturn it ‘only if it
either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts
and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of the
evidence.’” In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 18, 520 P.3d 38
(quoting In re E.R., 2021 UT 36, ¶ 31, 496 P.3d 58). “Although we
defer to juvenile courts‘ factual determinations, in reviewing their
conclusions we do so with an exacting focus on the proper
evidentiary standard.” In re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 73, 491 P.3d 867.
¶3 	Father 	contends 	that 	the 	juvenile 	court 	erred 	in
determining that termination of his parental rights was in Child’s
best interest and was strictly necessary.1 “[O]nce a statutory
ground for termination is found, identifying the option for the
child that promotes her welfare and best interest takes precedence
over the other considerations.” In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60, ¶ 61, 472
P.3d 827. The best interest analysis must be “undertaken from the
child’s point of view.” Id. ¶ 64. And “when the court considers a
child’s welfare and best interest, the court’s focus should be firmly
fixed on finding the outcome that best secures the child’s well-
being.” Id. “The strictly necessary language is designed to ensure
that the court pause long enough to thoughtfully consider the
range of available options that could promote the child’s welfare
and best interest.” Id. ¶ 69. “[I]f a court has complied with its
statutory obligations, its resultant best interest determination is
entitled to deference.” In re B.W., 2022 UT App 131, ¶ 69.
¶4 	Father argues that the juvenile court’s analysis regarding
whether it was strictly necessary to terminate his parental rights
was “incomplete and incorrect.” In particular, he asserts that the
1. The juvenile court found multiple grounds for termination,
which Father does not challenge.

In re A.K.
20220671-CA 	3 	2022 UT App 148
juvenile court should have placed Child in the permanent custody
and guardianship of Foster Parents rather than terminating his
parental rights.
¶5 	He first argues that the juvenile court improperly focused
on Father’s relationship with Foster Parents because that “turned
its focus away from the best interests of Child.” However, Father
also acknowledges that the relationship between a biological
parent 	and 	foster 	parents 	may 	affect 	the 	best 	interest
determination and is particularly relevant to the question of
whether a permanent guardianship arrangement with foster
parents is in a child’s best interest. Here, the juvenile court’s
findings regarding Father’s relationship with Foster Parents are
tied to Child’s best interest as a whole.
¶6 	The juvenile court reasoned that “[p]ermanent custody and
guardianship is typically in a child’s best interest where the
guardians and the parent have a working, relatively healthy
relationship, they are willing to work together to preserve the
parent-child relationship, and the child has a healthy relationship
with both the guardian and parent.” The juvenile court evaluated
whether Father had a working relationship with Foster Parents
and found that he did not, nor was he likely to be able to maintain
one. That finding was supported by other findings and by
testimony at trial.
¶7 	The court found that Father’s decision not to participate in
mediation indicated a lack of engagement with Foster Parents.2
2. Father argues that mediations are generally for the purpose of
relinquishing parental rights and that he did not participate
because he had no intent to relinquish. However, Father’s counsel
requested the mediation and the court ordered it, which indicates
that Father was interested in participating, and was ordered to
participate, 	in 	mediation. 	Furthermore, 	mediation 	is 	an
opportunity to resolve a child welfare case without trial. It is not
(continued…)

In re A.K.
20220671-CA 	4 	2022 UT App 148
Furthermore, Foster Mother testified that she had not had a
conversation with Father over the time Child was in the foster
home. Her contact was limited to passively monitoring visitation.
Foster Mother also testified that Child struggled some with the
virtual visits and did not request visits with Father. She testified
that 	Foster 	Parents 	were 	committed 	to 	maintaining 	Child’s
relationship with Father, but they wanted more control to assure
that any contact was in Child’s best interest, taking her choice into
consideration. Additionally, the juvenile court noted Father’s
pattern of conflict with his own family members when they
offered assistance with Child, as well as Father’s failure to make
choices for Child’s benefit such as permitting family to help rather
than leaving her homeless and cut off from support. Given
Father’s pattern of conflict with Child’s past caregivers and the
lack of engagement between Father and Foster Parents, the
evidence supported the juvenile court’s determination that Father
and Foster Parents did not have a working relationship that
would make a permanent custody arrangement with Foster
Parents feasible.
¶8 	Father 	also 	asserts 	that 	the 	juvenile 	court 	erred 	in
considering a conflict with Father’s brother (Uncle) regarding
Child in 2019. Father alleges that “the juvenile court relied on
Father’s history with” Uncle when the court determined that
permanent custody and guardianship was not an appropriate
arrangement for Child. He contends that relying on the conflict
was inappropriate because Father and Uncle had re-established
their relationship shortly before trial.3 However, Father misstates
the juvenile court’s findings and the supporting evidence.
necessarily limited to relinquishing parental rights, but could
include negotiating other arrangements for the benefit of Child.
3. Father argues that the juvenile court’s consideration of the
conflict with Uncle is “improperly backwards facing” because
“the best-interest inquiry is generally to be conducted in present-
(continued…)

In re A.K.
20220671-CA 	5 	2022 UT App 148
¶9 	The juvenile court’s finding that “Father’s history with
family members who have attempted to help him reveals a
pattern of unhealthy conflict and arguments” is not limited to
Father’s removal of Child from Uncle in 2019. Rather, the juvenile
court noted a long pattern of conflict with family members due to
Father’s erratic behavior over the years. Testimony at trial showed
that Father had lived with various family members as an adult,
usually only for months at a time before conflict would lead to
Father’s departure. For example, Father’s father (Grandfather)
testified that he would let Father live with him for periods of time
but required Father to have a job. Father usually left after a period
of months because he rarely held a job longer than several
months. Indeed, after Father removed Child from Uncle’s home,
he and Child stayed with Grandfather, but with a familiar result
of leaving after a few months. He could have left Child there to
give her stability, but again removed Child from a stable and
supportive 	situation. 	In 	sum, 	the 	juvenile 	court 	properly
considered Father’s pattern of conflict with his family in a broader
sense than the 2019 conflict with Uncle.
¶10 	Finally, Father argues that the juvenile court failed to
consider that his two older children were in a permanent custody
and guardianship with Father’s sister (Aunt) and Father’s good
tense fashion.” In re Z.C.W., 2021 UT App 98, ¶ 12, 500 P.3d 94. He
argues that the reestablishing of Father’s relationship with Uncle
should have been considered rather than Father’s history of
conflict. Father overstates the “present-tense” inquiry, however.
Considering what a child’s best interest is at the time of trial does
not require ignoring historical patterns. Rather, “[i]n termination
cases, the juvenile court must weigh a parent’s past conduct with
her present abilities.” In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 13, 171 P.3d 435.
Father’s disagreement with the weight given to the evidence does
not equate with the evidence being improperly considered.

In re A.K.
20220671-CA 	6 	2022 UT App 148
relationship with Child.4 From the record and the juvenile court’s
thorough order, it is clear that the court fully considered the
evidence. 	Indeed, 	the 	juvenile 	court’s 	order, 	particularly
regarding the best interest analysis, is quite detailed and expressly
sets forth considerations for determining whether termination of
parental rights is strictly necessary. The juvenile court addressed
Child’s 	specific 	needs 	and 	circumstances 	in 	light 	of 	those
considerations.
¶11 	The juvenile court’s order includes references to Aunt’s
custody of the older children, and it acknowledges the loving
bond between Father and Child among the specific factors in its
best interest analysis. Father’s dissatisfaction appears to be with
the weight given to the evidence favorable to him. However, in
light of the juvenile court’s detailed findings and conclusions, we
cannot conclude that the juvenile court “failed to consider all of
the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was
nonetheless against the clear weight of the evidence.” In re J.J.W.,
2022 UT App 116, ¶ 18, 520 P.3d 38 (quotation simplified).
¶12 	Affirmed.
4. 	Father 	also 	argues 	that 	the 	juvenile 	court 	erred 	in 	its
determination because Child’s legal bond with her siblings would
be severed. However, Father ignores that the juvenile court
specifically found that Foster Parents are more likely than Father
to “provide [Child] with an opportunity for a more stable and
consistent relationship[] with her siblings and other healthy
biological family members.”