Utah Court of Appeals
Can permanent guardians seek reunification services in Utah? In re Z.G. Explained
Summary
After Guardian was awarded permanent custody of Z.G., the child was removed from Guardian’s custody following Guardian’s arrest on drug charges. The juvenile court denied Guardian’s request for reunification services, ruling both that Guardian lacked standing and that reunification was not in the child’s best interests.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals recently clarified an important question regarding permanent guardians’ rights in juvenile court proceedings. In In re Z.G., the court addressed whether permanent guardians have standing to seek reunification services when a child is removed from their custody.
Background and Facts
Guardian was awarded permanent custody and guardianship of Z.G. in December 2014 after the child was adjudicated neglected by her mother. However, just months later, Guardian was arrested on drug charges. The Division of Child and Family Services filed a verified petition, and the juvenile court adjudicated the child neglected by Guardian, granting custody to DCFS. The child’s guardian ad litem moved to deny reunification services to Guardian.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two critical issues: (1) whether permanent guardians have standing to request reunification services under the Juvenile Court Act, and (2) whether the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in denying such services based on the child’s best interests.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals held that permanent guardians do have standing to seek reunification services. The court analyzed the Juvenile Court Act and found that while section 78A-6-312 refers specifically to “parents,” other sections contemplate services for guardians. Notably, sections 78A-6-306 and 78A-6-314 reference returning children to “parent or guardian,” indicating legislative intent to include guardians. The court also noted that permanent guardians retain financial obligations for children in DCFS custody, making it inconsistent to deny them reunification rights.
However, the court affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of services, finding no abuse of discretion. The trial court properly considered the child’s multiple placements, Guardian’s dishonesty about drug use, and the need for stability in determining that reunification was not in the child’s best interests.
Practice Implications
This decision provides important guidance for practitioners representing permanent guardians. While establishing standing is now clear, the critical battle occurs on the best interests analysis, which receives deferential abuse of discretion review. Attorneys should focus on demonstrating stability, rehabilitation efforts, and the child’s need for continuity when seeking reunification services for guardian clients.
Case Details
Case Name
In re Z.G.
Citation
2016 UT App 98
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150457-CA
Date Decided
May 12, 2016
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Permanent guardians have standing to seek reunification services under the Juvenile Court Act, but juvenile courts retain discretion to deny such services when not in the child’s best interests.
Standard of Review
Correctness for interpretation of the Juvenile Court Act; abuse of discretion for the decision whether to provide or deny reunification services
Practice Tip
When representing permanent guardians seeking reunification services, focus on establishing that services would be in the child’s best interests rather than merely arguing standing, as the court will apply abuse of discretion review to the best interests determination.
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.