Can Utah courts terminate parental rights based on incarceration of uncertain duration? In re D.M. Explained

Background and Facts

In In re D.M., a father’s parental rights were terminated after a series of concerning events. The state initially removed the child from the mother’s custody following her suicide attempt. Father could not take custody at that time because he had just been released from jail for violating a protective order related to domestic violence against the mother. After Father completed portions of his service plan and drug tests came back negative, the juvenile court authorized a trial home placement with Father in May 2018.

However, in October 2018, just two months into the trial placement, Father was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). Because Father was on parole for aggravated assault against the mother, the DUI resulted in parole termination and his return to prison for an indefinite term of one to fifteen years. The juvenile court then terminated Father’s reunification services and designated adoption as the sole permanency goal.

Key Legal Issues

Father challenged the termination of parental rights, arguing insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s findings under Utah Code section 78A-6-507(1)(d). This provision requires that the parent has substantially neglected or been unable to remedy circumstances causing the out-of-home placement, and that there is substantial likelihood the parent will not be capable of exercising proper parental care in the near future. Father specifically contested the court’s finding regarding his future parental capacity, arguing the court found no clear and convincing evidence regarding his release date.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals distinguished between different statutory provisions governing parental termination. While Utah Code section 78A-6-508(2)(e) requires courts to consider incarceration periods exceeding one year when evaluating neglect or unfitness grounds, section 507(1)(d) contains no such limitation. The court held that a juvenile court may properly consider a parent’s current incarceration, regardless of duration, when determining whether the parent failed to remedy removal circumstances and can provide effective future care.

The court found clear and convincing evidence supported termination: Father’s DUI demonstrated continued substance abuse issues despite completing treatment, his failure to complete court-ordered domestic violence treatment showed unwillingness to address removal circumstances, and his significant incarceration period (22 months served with at least 10 more anticipated) supported findings regarding future parental incapacity.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that different statutory grounds for termination have distinct evidentiary requirements. Practitioners should carefully analyze which specific grounds apply to their case and understand that incarceration may be considered differently under various provisions. The court’s affirmance demonstrates the high deference given to juvenile court termination decisions when supported by substantial evidence of a parent’s inability to remedy circumstances causing removal.