State in Interest of EH v. AH, 880 P.2d 11 (Utah Ct. App. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
State in Interest of EH v. AH, 880 P.2d 11 (Utah Ct. App. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we therefore adopt the strickland test to determine a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in proceedings involving termination of parental rights.”
97 citation events (94 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State, in Interest of Pfb (utahctapp, 2008-07-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 45 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State, in Interest of Pfb
Utah Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we therefore adopt the strickland test to determine a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in proceedings involving termination of parental rights.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) In re Jonathan M.
Conn. · 2001 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
o allow habeas corpus challenges in termination proceedings would unacceptably require that children remain indefinitely in temporary foster care
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the interest of: C.B., Appellant, v. Juvenile Officer, Respondent.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.R., 929 A.2d 1034, 1037-38 (N.J. 2007) (same); In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah App. 1994) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Colorado Medical Board v. Singer (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Exam’rs v. McCroskey, 880 P.2d 11 1188, 1194-95 (Colo. 1994) (noting that the Board must have discretion to determine the generally accepted standard of medical practice, which is the “same degree of knowledge, skill, and care as exercised by other physicians in the same field of medicine”). ¶ 21 Thus, we discern no error in the Board’s interpretation that section 12-240-121(5)(a) does not codify the specific field of alternative medicine.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re R.D...
Utah Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (recognizing an implicit guarantee of effective assistance of counsel in a proceeding to terminate the 20220798-CA 13 2024 UT App 91 In re R.D. fundamental right of parenting one’s children); see also Utah Code § 78B-22-201(1)(b).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re K.J...
Utah Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances of this case, we reject Parents’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. ¶45 In child welfare cases, we employ the “Strickland test to determine a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.” See In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)), cert. denied, 890 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re K.J...
Utah Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances of this case, we reject Parents’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. ¶45 In child welfare cases, we employ the “Strickland test to determine a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.” See In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)), cert. denied, 890 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re C.M.R... (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Utah Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
First, parents involved in parental termination proceedings have an unquestioned right to the effective assistance of counsel, see In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994), and it seems obvious that to actualize that right in some termination cases, a remand procedure not unlike rule 23B for criminal cases must exist.
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re Carrington H. (5×)
Tenn. · 2016 · confidence medium
C.H., 166 P.3d 288 , 290 (Colo.App.2007); State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 155 , 425 A.2d 939, 943 (1979); In re R.E.S., 978 A.2d at 189 ; J.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children and Families, 170 So.3d 780, 790 (Fla.2015); In re A.R.A.S., 278 Ga.App. 608 , 629 S.E.2d 822 , 825 (2006); In re RGB, 229 P.3d 1066 , 1090 (Haw.2010); In re M.F., 326 Ill.App.3d 1110 , 261 Ill.Dec. 132 , 762 N.E.2d 701 , 709 (2002); In re A.R.S., 480 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Iowa 1992) (citing In re D.W., 385 N.W.2d 570, 579 (Iowa 1986)); In re Rushing, 9 Kan.App.2d 541 , 684 P.2d 445, 448-49 (1984); In re Adoption/Guardianship of Cha…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re: Carrington H. - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part (2×)
Tenn. · 2016 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 544 (Tex. 2003) (“[I]t would seem a useless gesture on the one hand to recognize the importance of counsel in termination proceedings [as provided by statute], and, on the other hand, not require that counsel perform effectively.”); In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (holding that Utah‟s statutory right to counsel would be meaningless or illusory without an effectiveness requirement); see also In re Stephen, 514 N.E.2d 1087, 1090-91 (Mass. 1987) (recognizing that a right to counsel is of little value without an expectation of effective…
examined Cited as authority (rule) S.E. v. State (4×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Utah Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
We agree. 122 To establish that she is entitled to a new trial based upon Trial Counsel's ineffective assistance, Mother "must show that counsel's performance was objectively deficient and that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the case." State in Interest of E.H, 880 P.2d at 13. "[TJhe proper standard for attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance," Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , and to demonstrate deficient performance, Mother must show that Trial Counsel's representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," 1d. at 688, 104 S.Ct.…
examined Cited as authority (rule) S.E. v. State (4×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Utah Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
We agree. 122 To establish that she is entitled to a new trial based upon Trial Counsel's ineffective assistance, Mother "must show that counsel's performance was objectively deficient and that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the case." State in Interest of E.H, 880 P.2d at 13. "[TJhe proper standard for attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance," Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , and to demonstrate deficient performance, Mother must show that Trial Counsel's representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," 1d. at 688, 104 S.Ct.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of RGB
Haw. · 2010 · confidence medium
Bd., 46 Ohio App.3d 85 , 546 N.E.2d 471, 473 (1988) (“[T]he two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases, announced in Strickland[,] is equally applicable in actions by the state to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental rights.”); In re K.L.C., 12 P.3d 478 , 480-81 (Okla.App.2000) (using Strickland as a “guiding principle! ]” in determining whether counsel was ineffective in termination of parental rights case); In re Bishop, 92 N.C.App. 662 , 375 S.E.2d 676, 678 (1989) (applying the criminal standard for ineffective assistance of counse…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Rgb
Haw. · 2010 · confidence medium
Bd., 46 Ohio App.3d 85 , 546 N.E.2d 471, 473 (1988) ("[T]he two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases, announced in Strickland [,] is equally applicable in actions by the state to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental rights."); In re K.L.C., 12 P.3d 478 , 480-81 (Okla.App.2000) (using Strickland as a "guiding principle[]" in determining whether counsel was ineffective in termination of parental rights case); In re Bishop, 92 N.C.App. 662 , 375 S.E.2d 676, 678 (1989) (applying the criminal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel as set…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Petition of R.E.S. (2×)
D.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re K.L., 751 N.W.2d 677 , 685 (N.D.2008) (“Because of the legislative directive that respondents be afforded counsel in termination proceedings, it would be absurd and meaningless to have the right to appointed counsel, but not to require counsel to be effective in this context.”); In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (“[T]he statute would be meaningless or illusory if it guaranteed only ineffective assistance of counsel”); In re M.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re RES (2×)
D.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re K.L., 751 N.W.2d 677, 685 (N.D.2008) ("Because of the legislative directive that respondents be afforded counsel in termination proceedings, it would be absurd and meaningless to have the right to appointed counsel, but not to require counsel to be effective in this context."); In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994) ("[T]he statute would be meaningless or illusory if it guaranteed only ineffective assistance of counsel"); In re M.D.(S.), 168 Wis.2d 995 , 485 N.W.2d 52, 55 (1992) ("[W]here the legislature provides the right to be `represented by counsel' or represented …
cited Cited as authority (rule) New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. B.R.
N.J. · 2007 · confidence medium
E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (holding statute implicitly guaranteed appointed counsel for parents in termination proceedings be effective).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Interest of Vh (2×) also: Cited "see"
Utah Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
The legislature's omission of "effective" should not be read to suggest an intent to provide only ineffective assistance of counsel.'" In re M.M., 2003 UT 54 ,¶7, 82 P.3d 1104 (quoting In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Ex Rel. Sh (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Utah Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
"To successfully challenge a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, . . . [Mother] must show that counsel's performance was objectively deficient and that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the case." In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (adopting the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S.H. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Utah Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
"To successfully challenge a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [Mother] must show that counsel's performance was objectively deficient and that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the case." In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 18 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (adopting the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) E.R. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Utah Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
The legislature's omission of "effective" should not be read to suggest an intent to provide only ineffective assistance of counsel'" In re M.M., 2003 UT 54, ¶7 , 82 P.3d 1104 (quoting In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. Color Country Management (2×)
Utah · 2004 · confidence medium
E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re M.M. v. State
Utah · 2003 · confidence medium
E.H. v. A.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State Ex Rel. Mm
Utah · 2003 · confidence medium
E.H. v. A.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of M.S.
Tex. · 2003 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Ex parte E.D., 777 So.2d 113, 115 (Ala.2000); State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 155 , 425 A.2d 939, 942-43 (1979); In re D.W., 385 N.W.2d 570, 579 (1986); In re Stephen, 401 Mass. 144 , 514 N.E.2d 1087, 1090-91 (1987); In re Trowbridge, 155 Mich.App. 785 , 401 N.W.2d 65, 66 (1986); In re G.L.H., 614 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.2000); In re D.D.F., 801 P.2d 703, 706-07 (Okla.1990); In re Geist, 310 Or. 176 , 796 P.2d 1193 , 1201 n. 12 (1990); In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re MS
Tex. · 2003 · confidence medium
P. 324(b)(2); Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509, 510-11 (Tex.1991). [26] Tex. Fam.Code § 107.013(a)(1). [27] See In re K.L., 91 S.W.3d 1 , 11 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.); In re B.L.D., 56 S.W.3d 203, 211-12 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 113 S.W.3d 340 , 2003 WL 21512622 (Tex.2003); In re J.M.S., 43 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); In re B.B., 971 S.W.2d 160, 172 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1998, pet. denied); Arteaga v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 924 S.W.2d 756, 762 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, writ denied); In re J.F., 888 S.W.2d 140, 143 (…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LW v. Department of Children and Families
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
App.3d 112 , 116 Ill.Dec. 69 , 518 N.E.2d 691 , 700-01 (1988); J.T., 740 N.E.2d at 1265; In Interest of J.P.B., 419 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Iowa 1988); In Interest of Rushing, 9 Kan.App.2d 541 , 684 P.2d 445, 449-50 (1984); Stephen, 514 N.E.2d at 1091 ; Matter of Trowbridge, 155 Mich.App. 785 , 401 N.W.2d 65, 66 (1986); Matter of Bishop, 92 N.C.App. 662 , 375 S.E.2d 676, 678-79 (1989); V.K., 565 A.2d at 712 ; Jones, 546 N.E.2d at 473 ; K.L.C., 12 P.3d at 480-81; A.H., 880 P.2d at 13; M.D.(S.), 485 N.W.2d at 55 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Ex Rel. Ag
Utah Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Appellants first raised their ineffective assistance claim in their post-judgment motion under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. [3] To establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must show that "counsel's performance was objectively deficient and that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced *565 the case." In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.G. v. State
Utah Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Appellants first raised their ineffective assistance claim in their post-judgment motion under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 To establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must show that "counsel's performance was objectively deficient and that counsel's deficient performance preju diced the case." In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 18 (Utah Ct.App.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LC v. State
Utah Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
E.H. v. A.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App. 1994) (holding that statutory right to counsel in termination of parental rights cases grants appellant right to effective assistance of counsel).
cited Cited as authority (rule) L.C. v. State
Utah Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
E.H. v. A.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (holding that statutory right to counsel in termination of parental rights cases grants appellant right to effective assistance of counsel).
cited Cited "see" In re B.G.
Utah · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994).
examined Cited "see" In re S.S. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Utah Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (holding that a parent’s statutory right to counsel in termination proceedings guarantees the right to effective counsel). ‚An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.‛ State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 .
discussed Cited "see" R.F. v. B.A.F. (2×)
Utah Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994).
discussed Cited "see" In Re JRGF (2×)
Utah Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994).
discussed Cited "see" D.H. v. State
Utah Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
Interpreting section 78-3a-913(l)(a), this court has held, “[Ijndigent parents facing the permanent deprivation of their parental rights are entitled not only to an appointed attorney, but to the effective assistance of counsel.” In re C.C., 2002 UT App 149 ,¶ 7, 48 P.3d 244 ; see In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994).
discussed Cited "see" State Ex Rel. Rh
Utah Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
Interpreting section 78-3a-913(1)(a), this court has held, "[I]ndigent parents facing the permanent deprivation of their parental rights are entitled not only to an appointed attorney, but to the effective assistance of counsel." In re C.C., 2002 UT App 149 ,¶ 7, 48 P.3d 244 ; see In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994).
discussed Cited "see" State Ex Rel. Cc
Utah Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.) (adopting the same test used in criminal cases to decide a claim of ineffective assistance in a juvenile *248 court proceeding), cert. denied, 890 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1994). ¶ 8 Utah, like many other states, has elected to provide statutorily for the appointment of counsel in termination cases. [3] See Utah Code Ann. § 78 -3a-913(1)(a) (Supp.2001); In re A.E., 2001 UT App 202 at ¶ 10 , 29 P.3d 31 ; In re E.H., 880 P.2d at 13 .
discussed Cited "see" L.K. v. State
Utah Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re K.H., 880 P.2d 11, 18 (Utah Ct.App.) (adopting the same test used in criminal cases to decide a claim of ineffective assistance in a juvenile court proceeding), cert. denied, 890 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1994). f T8 Utah, like many other states, has elected to provide statutorily for the appointment of counsel in termination cases. 3 See Utah Code Ann. § 78 -8a-918(1)(a) (Supp.2001); In re AF., 2001 UT App 202 at 1 10, 29 P.8d 31; In re EH., 880 P.2d at 18 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Webster
Utah Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 18 (Utah Ct.App.) ("Utah courts have a duty to interpret statutes so that they will not be rendered meaningless."), cert. denied, 890 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1994).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re A.H...
Utah Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Utah Code § 78B-22-201(1)(b); see also In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (holding that appellants in child welfare proceedings are “entitled to effective assistance of counsel,” and “adopt[ing] the Strickland [v. Washington] test to determine a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in proceedings involving termination of parental rights”). ¶44 To establish ineffective assistance of counsel under the prevailing test, “a party must show that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the case.” In…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re A.H...
Utah Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Fourth, Father argues that trial counsel introduced or emphasized harmful evidence, including that Father had $7,000 in savings and had paid his own attorney fees and that Father had physically disciplined his older child several years earlier. ¶35 “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, [Father] must show that (1) ‘counsel’s performance was deficient’ and (2) this ‘deficient performance prejudiced the defense.’” See In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, ¶ 19 , 473 P.3d 184 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)); see also In re E.H., 880 P.2d 1…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re A.C..
Utah Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See id. ¶21 ‚The juvenile court has the discretion to appoint substitute counsel if the court’s inquiry into the party’s request reveals good cause for the substitution.‛ Id. ¶ 12. ‚*T+o warrant substitution of counsel, [an indigent parent] must show good cause, such as . . . a complete breakdown in communication . . . .‛ Id. (first alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ‚Although the right to effective assistance of counsel in parental termination cases is grounded in statute, unlike the Constitutional guarantee of a criminal defendant’s rig…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." P.C. v. State
Utah Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
"Although the right to effective assistance of counsel in parental termination cases is grounded in statute, unlike the Constitutional guarantee of a criminal defendant's right to effective counsel, our jurisprudence relies on criminal law for guidance on the question of substitution of counsel in juvenile proceedings." Id. ¶ 12 n. 5; see also In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (adopting the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to determine the effectiveness of counsel under the statute). 122 Father argues that an imp…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." P.C. v. State
Utah Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
"Although the right to effective assistance of counsel in parental termination cases is grounded in statute, unlike the Constitutional guarantee of a criminal defendant's right to effective counsel, our jurisprudence relies on criminal law for guidance on the question of substitution of counsel in juvenile proceedings." Id. ¶ 12 n. 5; see also In re E.H., 880 P.2d 11, 13 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (adopting the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to determine the effectiveness of counsel under the statute). 122 Father argues that an imp…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Utah In the Interest Of E.H. (08-09-85), J.H. (01-05-88), A.H. (12-06-88),
v.
A.H., Appellant.
930250-CA.
Court of Appeals of Utah.
Aug 12, 1994.
880 P.2d 11
Bench, Billings and Greenwood.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 69%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Connecticut (1)

[*12] L.G. Cutler, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

Jan Graham and Carol L.C. Verdoia, Salt Lake City, for State.

Ann Wassermann, Salt Lake City, guardian ad litem.

Before BENCH, BILLINGS and GREENWOOD, JJ.

BENCH, Judge:

Appellant challenges the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights to his minor children, E.H., J.H., and A.H. We affirm.

FACTS

In March 1990, the children's mother left the three children with her former foster mother. In April 1990, the Division of Family Services (DFS) placed the children in protective care because the mother's former foster mother became too ill to care for the children. At that time, appellant was incarcerated in California awaiting trial in a criminal matter. DFS filed a petition seeking custody of the children, alleging the mother had neglected the children and appellant was unavailable to parent the children due to his incarceration.

Over the next two years, DFS developed four separate treatment plans for the mother, attempting to reunite her with the children. The mother failed each of these plans and deserted the children completely for over ten months in 1991. During this time, appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder. He was sentenced to eighteen years and four months in California prison, with the earliest possible release date being October 14, 1999. Thereafter, DFS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both the mother and appellant, alleging that they were unfit under Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-48(1)(a) (1992). Following a trial, the juvenile court terminated parental rights to both the mother and appellant. Appellant challenges the juvenile court's order.

ISSUES

Appellant raises the following issues: (1) whether a parent is entitled to effective assistance of counsel when defending against a petition to terminate parental rights; and (2) whether he received effective assistance of counsel.[1]

ANALYSIS

Effective Assistance of Counsel

Appellant argues that Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-35(2)(a) (1992), which provides[*13] parents with counsel in juvenile proceedings, implies that such counsel must be effective. We agree.

Section 78-3a-35(2)(a) provides, in pertinent part:

Parents, guardians, the child's custodian, and the child, if old enough, shall be informed that they have the right to be represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings. They have the right to employ counsel of their own choice and, if any of them requests an attorney and is found by the court to be indigent, counsel shall be appointed by the court.

Id. Although this section does not expressly state that counsel must be effective, the statute would be meaningless or illusory if it guaranteed only ineffective assistance of counsel. The legislature's omission of "effective" should not be read to suggest an intent to provide only ineffective assistance of counsel. In fact, Utah courts have a duty to interpret statutes so that they will not be rendered meaningless. See Olympia Sales Co. v. Long, 604 P.2d 919, 921 (Utah 1979); see also Jerz v. Salt Lake County, 822 P.2d 770, 773 (Utah 1991) ("It is our duty to construe each act of the legislature so as to give it full force and effect."). Thus, we believe that section 78-3a-35(2)(a) implicitly guarantees effective assistance of counsel in this proceeding to terminate appellant's "fundamental right" of parenting his children. See In re J.P., 648 P.2d 1364, 1377 (Utah 1982); In re Castillo, 632 P.2d 855, 856 (Utah 1981).

Since we hold that appellant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel, we must adopt a standard for determining counsel's effectiveness in representing parents in termination proceedings. In criminal cases, Utah courts have applied the test set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2069, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to decide a claim of ineffective assistance. See, e.g., State v. Hay, 859 P.2d 1, 5 (Utah 1993). To successfully challenge a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was objectively deficient and that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the case. Id. We see no reason for changing this standard in the present context.[2] We therefore adopt the Strickland test to determine a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in proceedings involving termination of parental rights.

Prejudice

Appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging that his counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial. Appellant argues that, absent counsel's deficient performance, there exists a reasonable likelihood that his parental rights would not have been terminated. Because we hold that appellant has not satisfied his burden of showing prejudice, we need not determine whether trial counsel's performance was deficient. See Fernandez v. Cook, 870 P.2d 870, 877 (Utah 1993) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. at 2069); State v. Frame, 723 P.2d 401, 405 (Utah 1986).

Appellant cites In re M.W.H. v. Aguilar, 794 P.2d 27 (Utah App.1990) to support his claim that "incarceration alone is not sufficient to support the permanent termination of parental rights."[3]Aguilar, however, was decided under a theory of abandonment, while the present case involves a termination proceeding under a theory of unfitness. The bases for the two theories may differ significantly. For example, appellant argues that[*14] there would have been a reasonable likelihood that his parental rights would not have been terminated if his counsel had argued that he made monthly contacts to DFS to inquire of his children. Parental contact is a significant consideration under an abandonment theory, but not under an unfitness theory. In the present case, appellant's parental rights were terminated under an unfitness theory. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-48(1)(a) (1992). Since appellant's parental rights were terminated under an unfitness theory, we reject appellant's argument that his counsel's failure to present his monthly contacts with DFS prejudiced his case.

The juvenile court terminated appellant's parental rights under Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-48(1)(a) (1992), which provides, in pertinent part: "The court may decree a termination of all parental rights with respect to one or both parents if the court finds... that the parent or parents are unfit or incompetent by reason of conduct or condition which is seriously detrimental to the child." Id. (emphasis added). Appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder. Appellant's violent conduct led to his eighteen-year prison sentence, a condition that is seriously detrimental to children in need of permanency. See In re K.S., 737 P.2d 170, 172 (Utah 1987) (termination is proper when parent is "unable or unwilling to perform the duties and responsibilities of a parent") (emphasis added). The juvenile court stated that appellant was unavailable to parent the children until at least 1999, nearly eight years from the termination, and that "[t]he children are in need of permanency and neither parent is likely to be able to provide permanency for any of the children in the foreseeable future." Based upon appellant's lengthy unavailability to parent the children, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating appellant's parental rights. See State ex rel. J.R.T. v. Timperly, 750 P.2d 1234, 1236 (Utah App.1988).[4] Therefore, we affirm the juvenile court's order and hold that appellant failed to satisfy his burden of showing prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Section 78-3a-35(2)(a) implicitly guarantees that appointed counsel for parents in termination proceedings must be effective. To measure the effectiveness of appointed counsel, we adopt the Strickland test. Appellant failed to prove that his counsel's actions prejudiced his case under the Strickland test. The judgment of the juvenile court is therefore affirmed.

Judith M. BILLINGS and GREENWOOD, JJ., concur.

1 Appellant also argues that the trial court erred by entering a finding and conclusion disputing his paternity of the three children. We need not reach this issue since we assume, for purposes of this appeal, that appellant was the biological father of the children.
2 Appellant urges us to adopt the standard described in State ex rel. Juvenile Dep't v. Geist, 310 Or. 176, 796 P.2d 1193 (1990). We believe that Geist essentially adopts the Strickland test in holding that the parent must show inadequate performance by counsel and that the inadequacy prejudiced the parent's case. Id. 796 P.2d at 1204. We note, however, that Geist correctly indicates that a parent is obligated to make all challenges to the adequacy of appointed trial counsel on direct appeal. Id. 796 P.2d at 1201. This differs from the criminal context, where a defendant who believes his or her counsel was ineffective may also file a habeas corpus action. To allow habeas corpus challenges in termination proceedings would unacceptably require that children remain indefinitely in temporary foster care. Id.
3 Appellant makes several other arguments, most of which deal with the paternity issue or the deficient-performance prong of the Strickland test. These arguments are irrelevant to the prejudice prong.
4 Several states have allowed for the termination of parental rights when a parent is incarcerated for a lengthy period of time. See, e.g., In re Melkonian, 152 Cal.App.2d 250, 313 P.2d 52, 53 (1957) (terminating parental rights was proper where father's conviction of manslaughter on two counts provided that he would be in prison for a lengthy period and child would be deprived of normal home life); In re Gogreve, 556 So.2d 967, 969 (La.Ct.App.1990) (terminating parental rights was proper where mother was sentenced to fifty years with no reasonable expectation of release for at least five years); In re Hurlbut, 154 Mich.App. 417, 397 N.W.2d 332, 334 (1986) (terminating parental rights was proper where father's conviction of first-degree murder provided that he would be in prison for lengthy period and child would be deprived of normal home for over two years).

Utah's statute was recently amended to include incarceration as a consideration in terminating parental rights on grounds of unfitness. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-408(2)(f) (Supp.1993). This statute, however, was not in effect during the relevant period of time in the present case.