When can courts deny kinship placements in parental rights termination cases? In re B.W. Explained

In termination of parental rights cases, Utah courts must carefully consider kinship placements before determining that termination is in a child’s best interest. However, the Utah Court of Appeals’ decision in In re B.W. demonstrates that courts can appropriately reject kinship placements when legitimate safety concerns exist.

Background and Facts

H.W. (Mother) gave birth to twins who tested positive for methamphetamine exposure, along with Mother herself. DCFS began providing protective supervision services, but Mother continued struggling with drug testing and compliance. Despite completing an inpatient treatment program, Mother relapsed multiple times within months. Mother requested that the children be placed with her mother and step-grandfather (Grandparents), but DCFS denied the placement because step-grandfather failed a background check due to five cases in the Licensing Information System (LIS) for severe child abuse or neglect. While three cases were administratively overturned, two remained because they “were of such significance that they [could not] be overturned.”

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether clear and convincing evidence supported grounds for termination, specifically failure of parental adjustment; and (2) whether termination was in the children’s best interest despite the potential kinship placement with Grandparents. The case required analysis of Utah’s strict necessity standard and the requirement to give “due weight” to kinship placements under Utah Code section 80-4-104(12)(b)(ii).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed the termination, finding sufficient evidence of failure of parental adjustment based on Mother’s continued methamphetamine use despite nearly two years of reunification services. Regarding the kinship placement, the court distinguished this case from In re A.H., where “no concerns” existed with proposed kinship caregivers. Here, legitimate safety concerns existed due to step-grandfather’s inclusion in the LIS for cases involving “severe type of child abuse or neglect.” The court noted that LIS inclusion can disqualify someone from adoption or childcare licensing, supporting the juvenile court’s conclusion that placement would be inappropriate. Importantly, the court found that step-grandfather could have testified to provide context about the underlying cases but chose not to do so.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that courts must consider kinship placements but may reject them based on documented safety concerns. Practitioners should ensure that clients subject to background check issues testify at termination hearings to provide necessary context, as courts will defer to official DCFS findings absent contrary evidence. The case also reinforces that the best interest analysis focuses on the child’s perspective and that termination can be “strictly necessary” even when kinship options theoretically exist if those options present legitimate safety concerns.