Does Utah's hearsay exception apply in parental rights termination proceedings? J.P. v. State Explained

Utah’s juvenile courts face difficult evidentiary questions when determining whether to terminate parental rights. In J.P. v. State, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether Utah Code section 78A-6-115(6)—which permits hearsay testimony about statements made by children under eight to trusted persons—applies in termination proceedings or only in dependency adjudications.

Background and Facts

DCFS removed four children from Mother’s home after severe domestic violence incidents with her paramour. Because Mother had previously received reunification services in 2009, the State proceeded directly to termination without offering additional services. The State sought to introduce hearsay statements from two children under eight made to their therapist and foster mother under the hearsay exception in Utah Code section 78A-6-115(6). Mother objected, arguing the statute applied only to adjudication hearings, not termination proceedings.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether the hearsay exception applies to termination proceedings; (2) whether the State established proper trust relationships between the children and witnesses; and (3) whether sufficient evidence supported termination. Mother also raised a constitutional challenge regarding her right to confront witnesses.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court ruled the hearsay exception applies to both adjudication and termination proceedings based on statutory interpretation. The exception appears in “General Provisions” rather than the specific adjudication section, and other provisions in section 78A-6-115 explicitly reference termination proceedings. Section 78A-6-115(4)(a) specifically permits written materials “for the purposes of establishing the fact of abuse, neglect, or dependency in adjudication hearings and in hearings upon petitions for termination of parental rights.” The court found Mother failed to preserve her constitutional confrontation argument by not specifically raising it below with supporting authority.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that practitioners can use Utah’s hearsay exception for children’s statements in termination proceedings, not just dependency cases. However, the State must still prove actual trust relationships existed—not merely assert them based on relationship type. Courts will examine evidence of the child’s comfort level, physical affection, confiding behavior, and other indicators that the child genuinely trusted the witness. Attorneys challenging hearsay admission must raise specific constitutional arguments with supporting authority to preserve them for appeal.