Utah Court of Appeals
What does 'strictly necessary' mean in Utah termination cases? In re B.T.B. Explained
Summary
Father appealed the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights to his children, arguing termination was not ‘strictly necessary’ because no adoption was contemplated. The court of appeals examined the meaning of the ‘strictly necessary’ requirement added to Utah Code section 78A-6-507(1) in 2012 and its relationship to the historical two-part termination test.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals issued a significant opinion in In re B.T.B. that fundamentally changed how courts must analyze termination of parental rights cases. The court disavowed a troubling line of precedent and clarified the meaning of the “strictly necessary” requirement added to Utah law in 2012.
Background and Facts
Father had been periodically incarcerated for drug-related offenses since 2012 and had only occasional contact with his children—visiting fourteen times total and never paying child support despite court orders. Mother petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights. Father did not contest the existence of statutory grounds for termination but argued that termination was not “strictly necessary” because no adoption was pending and the children would remain in Mother’s custody.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was interpreting the “strictly necessary” language added to Utah Code section 78A-6-507(1) in 2012 and how it fits with Utah’s historical two-part test for termination: (1) whether statutory grounds exist, and (2) whether termination serves the child’s best interests. The court also had to address its problematic “almost automatically” line of cases suggesting that once statutory grounds are proven, termination almost always follows.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court of appeals disavowed its “almost automatically” precedent as unsupported by statute or supreme court authority and inconsistent with constitutional protections of parental rights. The court held that “strictly necessary” should be analyzed as part of the best interest element, not as a separate third requirement. Under this framework, courts must determine whether termination is “absolutely essential” to the child’s best interest by examining all circumstances and considering whether alternatives to termination could adequately address the family’s issues.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly strengthens protections for parents facing termination proceedings. Courts can no longer rely on findings of statutory grounds to presume termination serves the child’s best interest. Instead, they must conduct an independent, thorough best interest analysis that considers alternatives like guardianships with family members. The decision also clarifies that termination can be “strictly necessary” even without a pending adoption in extreme cases involving abuse, rejecting Father’s absolute rule argument.
Case Details
Case Name
In re B.T.B.
Citation
2018 UT App 157
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20170906-CA
Date Decided
August 23, 2018
Outcome
Remanded
Holding
Courts should analyze the ‘strictly necessary’ language as part of the ‘best interest’ element of the two-part test for termination of parental rights, and the best interest inquiry must be applied independently rather than following ‘almost automatically’ from a finding of statutory grounds.
Standard of Review
The court reviews a trial court’s interpretation of a statute for correctness. The ultimate decision about whether to terminate a parent’s rights presents a mixed question of law and fact, with findings reviewed for clear error and conclusions of law for correctness, affording the court some discretion in applying the law to the facts. Due to the factually intense nature of the analysis, a trial court’s final decision regarding termination of parental rights should be afforded a high degree of deference.
Practice Tip
When challenging termination orders on appeal, argue that the trial court failed to conduct an independent best interest analysis that considers whether alternatives to termination exist that could adequately address the family’s issues.
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.