Can a parent waive their right to counsel in termination proceedings? A.C. v. R.C. and C.C. Explained

In A.C. v. R.C. and C.C., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a mother had properly waived her statutory right to counsel in parental termination proceedings under Utah Code section 78A-6-1111(1)(a).

The mother had been represented by counsel during the termination proceedings, but her attorney withdrew approximately two months before the scheduled hearing. When the court approved the withdrawal, it advised the mother that if she wanted representation at the termination hearing, she would need to retain new counsel quickly, as the court would not continue the hearing date.

The mother stated she would represent herself and made no effort to obtain new counsel. The day before the hearing, the court inquired whether she wanted to meet with an available attorney who could potentially represent her. Despite the court offering a thirty-day continuance if she wanted appointed counsel, the mother maintained her decision to represent herself.

On appeal, the mother argued that her acceptance of the court’s offer to have an attorney sit next to her and answer questions during the hearing amounted to a withdrawal of her waiver and a request for appointed counsel. The court of appeals disagreed, finding this characterization unfair given that the mother had consistently declined representation and reaffirmed her choice to proceed pro se.

The court concluded that the record demonstrated the mother reasonably understood both the parental termination proceedings and her right to counsel. The court noted that Utah courts require waiver of the statutory right to counsel be made with “reasonable understanding of the proceedings and awareness of the right to counsel,” distinguishing this from the more stringent “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily” standard applicable to constitutional rights.