Utah Court of Appeals
When can juvenile courts grant permanent custody to relatives? In re A.B. Explained
Summary
Mother appealed a juvenile court order placing her children in permanent custody with their grandfather. The State had moved to terminate services due to both parents’ lack of involvement, but the court gave them 45 additional days to demonstrate engagement with services, which mother failed to do.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in In re A.B. affirmed a juvenile court’s decision to place children in permanent custody with their grandfather, demonstrating how courts evaluate the best interests of children when parents fail to comply with service plans.
Background and Facts
The Division of Child and Family Services moved to terminate services due to both parents’ lack of involvement in court-approved service plans. However, the juvenile court provided each parent an additional 45 days to demonstrate their commitment to regaining custody by engaging with the child and family plan. During this period, the mother failed to contact the case worker despite moving to another state, did not inform DCFS of her new living situation, and offered no explanation for her complete lack of communication or compliance with services.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary issues: whether sufficient evidence supported the finding that returning the children to mother would create substantial risk of detriment, and whether the juvenile court’s findings were adequate for appellate review.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
Under Utah Code § 78A-6-314(2)(c), it constitutes prima facie evidence of substantial risk when a parent fails to participate in, comply with, or meet the goals of a court-approved service plan. The court applied the clearly erroneous standard for factual findings and the clear weight of evidence standard for permanent custody decisions. The evidence showed the children were thriving in their grandfather’s care and experiencing stability previously lacking in their lives.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that juvenile courts have wide discretion in permanency determinations, and appellate courts will not reweigh evidence when a foundation exists. Practitioners should ensure clients understand that failure to engage with services creates statutory presumptions favoring alternative placements, and that permanent custody and guardianship may be the least restrictive option when reunification is not viable.
Case Details
Case Name
In re A.B.
Citation
2017 UT App 14
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20160793-CA
Date Decided
January 26, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The juvenile court properly placed children in permanent custody with their grandfather where mother failed to participate in court-approved services and returning the children would create substantial risk of detriment.
Standard of Review
Clearly erroneous for factual findings; clear weight of evidence standard for permanent custody decisions
Practice Tip
In juvenile cases, ensure clients understand that failure to communicate with case workers or participate in service plans creates prima facie evidence supporting permanent custody placement.
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.