Utah Court of Appeals
When is termination of parental rights strictly necessary for a child's best interests? In re E.R. Explained
Summary
DCFS sought termination of Mother’s parental rights to E.R., an eleven-year-old child with autism, behavioral issues, and PTSD who had been in foster care for three years. The juvenile court terminated Mother’s rights after finding grounds for termination and determining that E.R.’s need for stability and aversion to court proceedings made termination strictly necessary for his best interests.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In In re E.R., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when termination of parental rights satisfies the strictly necessary standard required under Utah law. The case highlights how courts must balance fundamental parental rights against a child’s individual psychological needs.
Background and Facts
E.R. was an eleven-year-old child with autism, behavioral and emotional dysregulation, PTSD, and mood disorder. DCFS had been involved with the family since 2008, with multiple findings of neglect and abuse. After E.R.’s parents’ rights to his siblings were terminated, the State sought termination of Mother’s parental rights to E.R., who had been in foster care for three years and was thriving with his foster family.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether termination was strictly necessary to serve E.R.’s best interests, particularly when the alternative of permanent custody and guardianship would allow continued parental contact. Mother argued the court failed to adequately explore this less drastic alternative.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the two-part test requiring both statutory grounds for termination and a finding that termination serves the child’s best interests. Critically, the court found E.R. had a “particular aversion to anything court related” and that court proceedings caused him significant distress. The court determined that permanent guardianship would leave open the “specter of repeated court involvement” through potential future motions and hearings, which would be detrimental to E.R.’s need for stability and permanency.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that the strictly necessary analysis must focus on the individual child’s specific circumstances, not general principles. Courts must explore feasible alternatives to termination, but when they articulate supported reasons for rejecting alternatives based on the child’s particular needs, those findings receive substantial deference on appeal. Practitioners should emphasize the child’s unique psychological profile and relationship to court proceedings when arguing for or against termination.
Case Details
Case Name
In re E.R.
Citation
2019 UT App 208
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20190184-CA
Date Decided
December 19, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A juvenile court may terminate parental rights when it finds statutory grounds exist and termination is strictly necessary to serve the child’s best interests, considering the child’s specific psychological needs and aversion to ongoing court involvement.
Standard of Review
Mixed question of law and fact: clear error for factual findings and correctness for legal conclusions, with high degree of deference to the juvenile court’s termination decision due to its factually intensive nature
Practice Tip
When challenging termination decisions, focus on whether the juvenile court adequately explored feasible alternatives and articulated supported reasons for rejecting them, as these findings receive significant deference on appeal.
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.