Utah Court of Appeals
When do sibling placement preferences apply in Utah termination cases? In re M.J. and T.J. Explained
Summary
Mother appealed the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to M.J. and T.J., challenging both the court’s failure to place the children with their adoptive siblings and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the best interest determination. The children had been removed due to domestic violence and were placed with foster parents who wished to adopt them.
Analysis
In In re M.J. and T.J., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the interplay between sibling placement preferences and best interest determinations in parental rights termination proceedings.
Background and Facts
Mother had a lengthy history with DCFS dating back to 2003. She and Father voluntarily relinquished rights to three older children due to domestic violence, who were adopted by the Adoptive Parents. When M.J. and T.J. were born, they too were removed due to domestic violence. DCFS twice attempted to place the children with the Adoptive Parents, but they were either unwilling or unlicensed. The children were ultimately placed with Foster Parents, who formed critical attachments with them over more than a year.
Key Legal Issues
Mother challenged the termination on two grounds: (1) failure to place children with biological siblings violated her due process rights, and (2) insufficient evidence supported the best interest determination. She argued Utah Code section 78A-6-312(19) required DCFS to investigate sibling placement with the older children.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court declined to address Mother’s constitutional claims as unpreserved, noting she failed to raise due process issues before the juvenile court or argue plain error on appeal. On the best interest analysis, the court emphasized that the narrow issue was whether Mother’s rights should be terminated, not who should adopt the children. The court found the sibling placement statute’s use of “sibling group” suggests an affiliation based on more than genetics—requiring an actual relationship. Here, the children had no bond with their older siblings and had never lived together as a family unit.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that sibling placement preferences under Utah Code section 78A-6-312(19) apply only when a meaningful sibling relationship exists, not merely biological connection. The statute’s exceptions for practicability and best interest provide flexibility when placement with siblings would be harmful. Practitioners should also ensure constitutional claims are properly preserved at trial, as appellate courts will not consider unpreserved issues without exceptional circumstances.
Case Details
Case Name
In re M.J. and T.J.
Citation
2013 UT App 122
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20120560-CA
Date Decided
May 16, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The juvenile court properly terminated Mother’s parental rights where the children had formed critical attachments with their foster parents and placement with biological siblings would not serve the children’s best interests.
Standard of Review
Clear error for best interest determinations in termination proceedings; correctness for constitutional issues including due process
Practice Tip
Preserve constitutional claims by raising them at the trial court level, as appellate courts will not consider unpreserved constitutional issues without a plain error or exceptional circumstances argument.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.