Utah Court of Appeals
Can habitual incarceration alone support termination of parental rights? In re L.A. Explained
Summary
Father appealed termination of his parental rights to his daughter, born in 2014 while he was incarcerated. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights based on his inability to remain out of jail and inability to provide proper parental care in the near future.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In In re L.A., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a father’s pattern of incarceration could support termination of parental rights under Utah Code section 78A-6-507(1)(d), even without meeting the specific felony conviction requirements of other statutory provisions.
Background and Facts
The child was born in November 2014 while the father was incarcerated for theft by receiving stolen property. After his release in March 2015, father established paternity in July 2015 but was reincarcerated in September 2015 for a probation violation. The juvenile court found that father’s “habitual incarceration demonstrated his inability or unwillingness to remedy the circumstances that caused [the child] to be in an out-of-home placement.”
Key Legal Issues
Father challenged the termination on two grounds: first, that delays in DNA testing created a fundamentally unfair process, and second, that insufficient evidence supported the court’s finding of unfitness under section 78A-6-507(1)(d). Father argued that his incarceration could not support termination because he was not convicted of a felony and was not incarcerated for more than one year, as specified in Utah Code section 78A-6-508(2)(e).
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. Regarding the due process claim, the court found it was not properly preserved below. On the sufficiency challenge, the court distinguished between different statutory grounds for termination. While section 78A-6-508(2)(e) requires felony conviction and one-year incarceration for findings of unfitness, section 78A-6-507(1)(d) focuses on whether there is “substantial likelihood that the parent will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care in the near future.” The court emphasized that the legislature used different time frames advisedly.
Practice Implications
This case demonstrates that courts may consider patterns of incarceration under the broader “near future” standard of section 78A-6-507(1)(d) without meeting the specific requirements of section 78A-6-508(2)(e). The decision also highlights the importance of pursuing multiple avenues to establish paternity when DNA testing faces delays, as unmarried fathers must demonstrate “timely and full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood” to acquire constitutional protection.
Case Details
Case Name
In re L.A.
Citation
2017 UT App 131
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20151005-CA
Date Decided
July 28, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A juvenile court may terminate parental rights under Utah Code section 78A-6-507(1)(d) when a parent’s habitual incarceration demonstrates inability to remedy circumstances causing out-of-home placement and there is substantial likelihood the parent cannot exercise proper parental care in the near future.
Standard of Review
Clearly erroneous for findings of fact in parental rights termination proceedings
Practice Tip
When representing incarcerated parents, immediately pursue alternative methods to establish paternity rather than relying solely on DNA testing, which may face procedural delays.
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.