Can parents challenge reasonable efforts findings on appeal without preserving the issue below? In re S.T. Explained

In In re S.T., the Utah Court of Appeals examined whether a mother could successfully challenge the adequacy of reunification services on appeal when she had not preserved this issue during the trial court proceedings.

Background and Facts

Three children were removed from their mother’s custody after incidents involving domestic violence, substance abuse, and a DUI arrest with the children in the vehicle. DCFS developed a comprehensive service plan with the mother’s input, requiring her to remain drug-free, complete substance abuse and mental health assessments, attend parenting classes, maintain stable housing, and participate in regular drug testing. Despite these services being provided over nearly two years, the mother continued using methamphetamine, failed drug tests, engaged in domestic violence with her partner, and failed to complete required services.

Key Legal Issues

The mother raised two challenges: (1) whether DCFS made reasonable efforts to provide adequate reunification services, particularly domestic violence and mental health services, and (2) whether termination was in the children’s best interest. Critically, the mother had not objected to the court’s reasonable efforts findings during multiple review hearings and sought review under the plain error standard.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected the mother’s reasonable efforts challenge, finding no plain error. Despite domestic violence services not being explicitly required in the service plan, DCFS actually provided such services, including helping the mother move to a women’s shelter and obtain a protective order. Regarding mental health services, the mother’s bipolar II diagnosis was delayed not due to inadequate services, but because she failed to attend therapy for six months. The court emphasized that the mother participated in creating the service plan and never requested additional services during multiple review hearings where she could have raised these concerns.

On the best interest analysis, the court found the children had thrived with their foster parents, developing strong emotional bonds and making remarkable academic and emotional progress. In contrast, visits with the mother caused behavioral problems that ceased when visits were discontinued. The court properly considered alternative placement options before concluding that termination was strictly necessary.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that parents cannot wait until appeal to challenge the adequacy of reunification services. The court noted that “complaints about what [parents] consider to be insufficient help from DCFS should have been brought to the attention of the juvenile court to address before the termination trial.” Practitioners must actively advocate for additional services during case proceedings and preserve objections to reasonable efforts findings at review hearings. The case also demonstrates the importance of client compliance with service plans, as the court found the mother’s non-compliance was the primary barrier to reunification rather than inadequate services.