fact-based inquiry in Utah

2015That is a fact-based inquiry that cannot be resolved by the State’s bare assertion. 2 See Spencer v. Utah State Bar, 2012 UT 92 , ¶¶23–24, 293 P.3d 360 (treating the Utah bar examination as a program under the terms of the ADA). 6 Cite as: 2015 UT 92 Opinion of the Court for reunification services.3 A few other courts have so held,4 and we find no room in the statutory text for a contrary conclusion. ¶20 As appellees note, a number of courts have reached the op- posite conclusion.

2015That is a fact-based inquiry that cannot be resolved by the State’s bare assertion. 2 See Spencer v. Utah State Bar, 2012 UT 92 , ¶¶23–24, 293 P.3d 360 (treating the Utah bar examination as a program under the terms of the ADA). 6 Cite as: 2015 UT 92 Opinion of the Court for reunification services.3 A few other courts have so held,4 and we find no room in the statutory text for a contrary conclusion. ¶20 As appellees note, a number of courts have reached the op- posite conclusion.

2015In In re Adoption of Gregory, , for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the ADA may not be raised as a defense in a termination proceeding because ―the proper focus of [such] proceedings is the welfare of the child,‖ not 3 See Pa. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998) (holding that a prison ran afoul of ADA by failing to provide a disabled prisoner access to a boot camp program that could have led to his early release; explaining that ―[t]he text of the ADA provides no basis for distinguishing‖ this program from other ―programs, ser- vices, and activities‖

2015In In re Adoption of Gregory, , for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the ADA may not be raised as a defense in a termination proceeding because “the 3 See Pa. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998) (holding that a prison ran afoul of ADA by failing to provide a disabled prisoner access to a boot camp program that could have led to his early release; explaining that “[t]he text of the ADA provides no basis for distinguishing” this program from other “programs, ser- vices, and activities” covered by the ADA). 4 See Family Indep.

2023Sheppard, 2021 UT 31, ¶ 41 (quotation simplified). ¶18 Given the factual circumstances here, Brinkerhoff was still required to present expert testimony to prove causation, as her injuries were not such that they would fall under that limited common knowledge exception.