Can an approved ICPC override a court's best interest determination in parental rights termination? In re R.G. Explained

In In re R.G., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a juvenile court erred in terminating parental rights when an Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) was approved for out-of-state kinship placement. The case highlights the complex interplay between procedural requirements and best interest determinations in termination proceedings.

Background and Facts

Child was removed from her parents’ custody shortly after birth due to mother’s substance use. From the beginning, father requested placement with his sister (Aunt) in Georgia. DCFS initiated the ICPC process, but delays occurred due to missing documentation and COVID-19 pandemic impacts. Meanwhile, Child was placed with a foster family that had previously adopted two of her biological half-siblings. The ICPC was eventually approved, but not until after the termination trial concluded. Throughout the nearly two-year process, Aunt never requested contact with Child or attempted to meet her.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the juvenile court erred in finding termination was strictly necessary when an approved ICPC created the possibility of out-of-state kinship placement. Father argued on appeal that the court failed to adequately consider feasible placement alternatives and relied on categorical concerns rather than case-specific analysis.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, applying plain error review because father failed to preserve the issue below. The court emphasized that an approved ICPC does not guarantee placement—it merely removes legal barriers. Under Utah Code § 80-3-302(7)(a)(i), courts must give preferential consideration to relative placement only “if the placement is in the best interest of the child.”

The court found no error in the juvenile court’s case-specific analysis. Child had lived with the foster family since one month of age and developed strong bonds with her biological half-siblings who were adopted into the same family. Conversely, Aunt had never met Child, never requested visits, and showed no effort to establish a relationship over nearly two years. The court rejected father’s argument that this constituted improper reliance on categorical concerns, finding instead that the analysis properly considered the particularized circumstances.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that procedural compliance with ICPC requirements alone is insufficient to establish that kinship placement would equally benefit a child. Practitioners should ensure proposed relatives actively engage throughout the case, seeking visitation and building relationships with the child. The court’s emphasis on sibling relationships as an independent supporting factor also suggests that existing kinship placements with biological siblings carry significant weight in best interest analyses. When challenging termination orders, practitioners must preserve issues at the trial level to avoid the demanding plain error standard on appeal.