Must Utah courts explicitly find detriment before denying services to incarcerated parents? In re A.T. and J.B.J. Explained

In In re A.T. and J.B.J., the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the requirements for denying reunification services to incarcerated parents under Utah Code section 78A-6-312(25)(a). The decision establishes important procedural safeguards for parents facing termination of parental rights while incarcerated.

Background and Facts

Mother was convicted of felony drug offenses and sentenced to one to fifteen years in prison. While incarcerated, the children remained with Father until he was also arrested for drug-related offenses. DCFS removed the children and initially focused reunification efforts on Father. When Father was subsequently incarcerated, the juvenile court changed the permanency goal to adoption without providing Mother reunification services. The court reasoned that Mother was serving a long-term sentence and services “as a practical matter, could not possibly be provided to her.”

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code section 78A-6-312(25)(a) requires courts to make an explicit judicial determination that reunification services would be detrimental to the minor before denying such services to an incarcerated parent. The statute mandates that courts “shall order reasonable services unless it determines that those services would be detrimental to the minor.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the word “shall” creates a mandatory obligation. The court held that considering the statutory factors under subsection (25)(b) without making an actual determination does not satisfy the plain language requirement. The legislature’s use of “determines” requires courts to make and explain a specific judicial decision about whether services would harm the children, not merely whether services would be impractical to provide.

Practice Implications

This decision requires juvenile courts to articulate explicit findings when denying reunification services to incarcerated parents. Practitioners should ensure that courts address each factor in subsection (25)(b) and make a clear determination that services would be detrimental, not merely inconvenient or impractical. The dissenting judge’s approach suggests that adequate findings supporting detriment may be sufficient even without explicit language, but the majority requires clear articulation of the determination.