Can a parent challenge DCFS's reasonable efforts from prior removal proceedings at a termination trial? In re B.J. Explained

Background and facts

Over roughly three years, Mother’s children were removed from her care on three separate occasions. In each of the first two proceedings, DCFS provided reunification services, Mother was reunified with her children, and the proceedings closed without an appeal. In the third proceeding, the juvenile court ordered no further reunification services under the statutory presumption against reunification when a child has been removed at least twice and services were previously offered. Following a three-day termination trial, the First District Juvenile Court terminated Mother’s parental rights to three of her children. Mother appealed on three grounds: DCFS’s failure to make reasonable efforts at reunification, failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act given her borderline personality disorder diagnosis, and error in the best-interests determination.

Key legal issues

The threshold question was whether the term “case” in Utah Code section 80-4-301(4)(a)—which requires a reasonable-efforts finding before parental rights may be terminated—encompasses prior removal proceedings that ended in reunification, or only the current proceeding. DCFS and the Guardian ad Litem argued the prior proceedings were unreviewable because they closed without appeal. Mother argued the statute’s text, the juvenile court’s docketing practice of assigning a single case number per child, and the holistic totality-of-the-circumstances framework for best-interests analysis all supported a broader reading. A second key issue was whether DCFS violated the ADA by failing to identify Mother’s borderline personality disorder and provide dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) as an accommodation.

Court’s analysis and holding

The Court of Appeals held that “case” in section 80-4-301(4)(a) includes prior removal proceedings involving the same child and parent, reasoning that a parent who achieves reunification ordinarily has no right to appeal the prior proceeding and therefore cannot fairly be required to have done so. The court anchored this interpretation in the statute’s totality-of-the-circumstances directive, the legislature’s explicit linkage between past proceedings and the presumption against further reunification services in Utah Code section 80-3-406(5)(h), and juvenile court docketing practices reflecting a one family–one judge model. On the merits, however, the court affirmed. DCFS’s mental health referrals were consistent with the diagnoses available at the time; Mother’s later borderline personality disorder diagnosis was not disclosed to DCFS or the court until the third proceeding was underway; and expert testimony established that the CBT previously recommended shared the core components of DBT. On the ADA claim, the court reiterated that the burden rests on the individual requesting accommodation to provide the agency with information about the disability and the specific accommodation needed—a request Mother never made. Finally, the best-interests determination was supported by detailed findings crediting the children’s stability in foster placements and the testimony of B.J. himself, and the court found the juvenile court adequately considered permanent custody and guardianship as an alternative to termination.

Practice implications

Practitioners representing parents in child welfare matters should treat every removal proceeding as a potential building block for—or against—a future termination case. The In re B.J. holding means that reasonable-efforts arguments from closed proceedings survive into a later termination trial, but the parent still bears the burden of demonstrating error and prejudice. Critically, ADA accommodation requests must be made expressly and in writing during the proceedings in which the disability is identified; courts will not find a violation based on accommodations the agency was never asked to provide. Document each request, link it to the specific disability and the specific service at issue, and renew it in the record before each hearing.