24 Utah opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 15 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re H.F.green2 sentences2024Parents do not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that sufficient statutory grounds for termination are present, but they do challenge the court’s conclusion that termination of their rights is in the children’s best interest. ¶116 The best-interest inquiry is “wide-ranging” and “asks a court to weigh the entirety of the circumstances” of a child’s situation, including “the physical, intellectual, social, moral, and educational training and general welfare and happiness of the child.” See In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶¶ 35, 37 , 463 P.3d 66 (quotation simplified); see also In re H.F., 2024Parents do not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that sufficient statutory grounds for termination are present, but they do challenge the court’s conclusion that termination of their rights is in the children’s best interest. ¶116 The best-interest inquiry is “wide-ranging” and “asks a court to weigh the entirety of the circumstances” of a child’s situation, including “the physical, intellectual, social, moral, and educational training and general welfare and happiness of the child.” See In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶¶ 35, 37 , 463 P.3d 66 (quotation simplified); see also In re H.F., | 4 | 5 |
In re J.M...green2 sentences2026A best-interest analysis “is a wide-ranging inquiry that asks a court to weigh the entirety of the circumstances, including a parent’s past behavior, to determine what is in the best interest of the child under all of the circumstances,” In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶ 35 , 463 P.3d 66 , and “[w]e review deferentially a lower court’s best- interest determination,” In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 18 , 520 P.3d 38 . 2025A best-interest analysis “is a wide-ranging inquiry that asks a court to weigh the entirety of the circumstances, including a parent’s past behavior, to determine what is in the best interest of the child under all of the circumstances,” In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶ 35 , 463 P.3d 66 , and “[w]e review deferentially a lower court’s best- interest determination,” In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 18 , 520 P.3d 38 . | 3 | 7 |
In re Z.C.W...green2 sentences2023The “statutory language uses the verb ‘is,’ indicating that the best- interest inquiry is to be undertaken in a present-tense fashion.” In re Z.C.W., 2021 UT App 98, ¶ 13 , 500 P.3d 94 . 2023Present-Tense Best Interest of the Children ¶68 Mother argues that the court’s conclusion that it was in the best interest of the Children to terminate her parental rights was “based on outdated information.” In Mother’s view, the court failed to properly account for the fact “that between January 2022 and July 2022, Mother had supervised visits without incident.” We disagree. ¶69 Again, it’s settled that “the best-interest inquiry is to be undertaken in a present-tense fashion.” In re Z.C.W., 2021 UT App 98, ¶ 13 . | 3 | 4 |
In re A.H...green2 sentences2023“Because children inhabit dynamic environments in which their needs and circumstances are 20220774-CA 24 2023 UT App 122 In re H.M. constantly evolving,” the best interest inquiry must “be undertaken in a present-tense fashion, as of the date of the trial or hearing held to decide the question.” In re A.H., 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 34 , 518 P.3d 993 (quotation simplified), cert. granted, 525 P.3d 1279 (Utah 2023). 2023See id. (“[W]e question whether—in many cases, including this one—a parent’s desire to re-engage in their child’s life should be viewed as negatively as the juvenile court appeared to view it.”). ¶28 All of this is especially true in this case, where the prospective adoptive parent is Father’s own mother. | 2 | 4 |
R.B. v. L.B.green2 sentences2019Petitions to Modify ¶32 Hefley argues that the Stipulated Decree "unreasonably restricts [her] from filing any petition to modify in this matter." Specifically, she claims "it prevents the court from ever addressing the best interest of the children or change in circumstances, even in the case of abuse and/or neglect." We also reject this argument. ¶33 "[P]arties cannot stipulate away the district court's statutory responsibility to conduct a best-interest analysis ... to ensure that any custody arrangement ... serves the child's best interest." R.B. v. L.B. , 2014 UT App 270 , ¶ 16, 339 P.3d 2018See id. ¶¶ 21-28, 37 ; see also R.B. v. L.B. , 2014 UT App 270 , ¶¶ 14-17, 339 P.3d 137 ("[P]arties cannot stipulate away the district court's statutory responsibility to conduct a best-interest analysis."); see generally Utah Code Ann. §§ 78A-6-503(12), -506(3) (LexisNexis 2012 & Supp. 2017) (providing that the court determines whether termination is appropriate in light of "the welfare and best interest of the child," which is "of paramount importance" (emphasis added) ). ¶21 For example, in In re adoption of J.M ., 2005 UT App 157 , 135 P.3d 902 (per curiam), although the father delegated h | 2 | 4 |
R.B. v. L.B.green2 sentences2019Petitions to Modify ¶32 Hefley argues that the Stipulated Decree "unreasonably restricts [her] from filing any petition to modify in this matter." Specifically, she claims "it prevents the court from ever addressing the best interest of the children or change in circumstances, even in the case of abuse and/or neglect." We also reject this argument. ¶33 "[P]arties cannot stipulate away the district court's statutory responsibility to conduct a best-interest analysis ... to ensure that any custody arrangement ... serves the child's best interest." R.B. v. L.B. , 2014 UT App 270 , ¶ 16, 339 P.3d 2018See id. ¶¶ 21-28, 37 ; see also R.B. v. L.B. , 2014 UT App 270 , ¶¶ 14-17, 339 P.3d 137 ("[P]arties cannot stipulate away the district court's statutory responsibility to conduct a best-interest analysis."); see generally Utah Code Ann. §§ 78A-6-503(12), -506(3) (LexisNexis 2012 & Supp. 2017) (providing that the court determines whether termination is appropriate in light of "the welfare and best interest of the child," which is "of paramount importance" (emphasis added) ). ¶21 For example, in In re adoption of J.M ., 2005 UT App 157 , 135 P.3d 902 (per curiam), although the father delegated h | 2 | 4 |
In re H.H....green2 sentences2024Parents do not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that sufficient statutory grounds for termination are present, but they do challenge the court’s conclusion that termination of their rights is in the children’s best interest. ¶116 The best-interest inquiry is “wide-ranging” and “asks a court to weigh the entirety of the circumstances” of a child’s situation, including “the physical, intellectual, social, moral, and educational training and general welfare and happiness of the child.” See In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶¶ 35, 37 , 463 P.3d 66 (quotation simplified); see also In re H.F., 2024Parents do not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that sufficient statutory grounds for termination are present, but they do challenge the court’s conclusion that termination of their rights is in the children’s best interest. ¶116 The best-interest inquiry is “wide-ranging” and “asks a court to weigh the entirety of the circumstances” of a child’s situation, including “the physical, intellectual, social, moral, and educational training and general welfare and happiness of the child.” See In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶¶ 35, 37 , 463 P.3d 66 (quotation simplified); see also In re H.F., | 2 | 2 |
L.M. v. V.C.green2 sentences2018See id. ¶¶ 21-28, 37 ; see also R.B. v. L.B. , 2014 UT App 270 , ¶¶ 14-17, 339 P.3d 137 ("[P]arties cannot stipulate away the district court's statutory responsibility to conduct a best-interest analysis."); see generally Utah Code Ann. §§ 78A-6-503(12), -506(3) (LexisNexis 2012 & Supp. 2017) (providing that the court determines whether termination is appropriate in light of "the welfare and best interest of the child," which is "of paramount importance" (emphasis added) ). ¶21 For example, in In re adoption of J.M ., 2005 UT App 157 , 135 P.3d 902 (per curiam), although the father delegated h 2018See id. ¶¶ 21–28, 37; see also R.B. v. L.B., 2014 UT App 270 , ¶¶ 14–17, 339 P.3d 137 (“[P]arties cannot stipulate away the district court’s statutory responsibility to conduct a best-interest analysis.”); see generally Utah Code Ann. §§ 78A-6-503(12), -506(3) (LexisNexis 2012 & Supp. 2017) (providing that the court determines whether termination is appropriate in light of “the welfare and best interest of the child,” which is “of paramount importance” (emphasis added)). ¶21 For example, in In re adoption of J.M., 2005 UT App 157 , 135 P.3d 902 (per curiam), although the father delegated his p | 2 | 2 |
In re C.C.W.green2 sentences2021In this opinion we cite the current code sections for convenience, at least with regard to code sections that have not been materially altered. 20200039-CA 8 2021 UT App 98 In re Z.C.W. “of paramount importance in determining whether termination of parental rights shall be ordered”). ¶11 We have explained that the best-interest inquiry “requires courts to examine all of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the child’s situation.” In re C.C.W., 2019 UT App 34, ¶ 18 , 440 P.3d 749 (quotation simplified). 2021In this opinion we cite the current code sections for convenience, at least with regard to code sections that have not been materially altered. 20200039-CA 8 2021 UT App 98 In re Z.C.W. “of paramount importance in determining whether termination of parental rights shall be ordered”). ¶11 We have explained that the best-interest inquiry “requires courts to examine all of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the child’s situation.” In re C.C.W., 2019 UT App 34, ¶ 18 , 440 P.3d 749 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2 |
In re B.T.B.green2 sentences2023The lower court must consider the “physical, intellectual, social, moral, and educational training and general welfare and happiness of the child.” BTB I, 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 47 (cleaned up). 2023BTB I, 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 47 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2 |
In re D.S....green1 sentence2024“The best-interest inquiry is intended as a holistic examination of all of the relevant circumstances that might affect a child’s situation.” Id. ¶ 21 (cleaned up); see also In re D.S., 2023 UT App 98, ¶ 18 (“The best-interest inquiry is wide-ranging and asks a court to weigh the entirety of the circumstances of a child’s Restoration of Parental Rights, and termination is in the best interests of the child.” Utah Code § 78B-6-112(5)(e). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Scottgreen2 sentences2021See Scott v. Scott, 2017 UT 66, ¶ 24 , 423 P.3d 1275 (“Typically, we understand ‘is’ as a present tense . . . verb . . . . 2021See Scott v. Scott, 2017 UT 66, ¶ 24 , 423 P.3d 1275 (“Typically, we understand ‘is’ as a present tense . . . verb . . . . | 1 | 1 |
State in Interest of Hjgreen2 sentences2021See In re J.J.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (stating that, when considering “the best interest[] of a child, a court must be free from the imposition of artificial constraints that serve merely to advance the cause of judicial economy”). ¶12 In the context of evaluating the termination of a parent’s rights, we have stressed that “[c]onsiderations regarding a child’s welfare are rarely, if ever, static,” and that often “the child’s environment is constantly evolving.” Id. at 163 ; see also In re H.J., 1999 UT App 238, ¶ 45 , 986 P.2d 115 (stating that a child’s “needs and circumsta 2021See In re J.J.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (stating that, when considering “the best interest[] of a child, a court must be free from the imposition of artificial constraints that serve merely to advance the cause of judicial economy”). ¶12 In the context of evaluating the termination of a parent’s rights, we have stressed that “[c]onsiderations regarding a child’s welfare are rarely, if ever, static,” and that often “the child’s environment is constantly evolving.” Id. at 163 ; see also In re H.J., 1999 UT App 238, ¶ 45 , 986 P.2d 115 (stating that a child’s “needs and circumsta | 1 | 1 |
State in Interest of JJTgreen2 sentences2021See In re J.J.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (stating that, when considering “the best interest[] of a child, a court must be free from the imposition of artificial constraints that serve merely to advance the cause of judicial economy”). ¶12 In the context of evaluating the termination of a parent’s rights, we have stressed that “[c]onsiderations regarding a child’s welfare are rarely, if ever, static,” and that often “the child’s environment is constantly evolving.” Id. at 163 ; see also In re H.J., 1999 UT App 238, ¶ 45 , 986 P.2d 115 (stating that a child’s “needs and circumsta 2021See In re J.J.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (stating that, when considering “the best interest[] of a child, a court must be free from the imposition of artificial constraints that serve merely to advance the cause of judicial economy”). ¶12 In the context of evaluating the termination of a parent’s rights, we have stressed that “[c]onsiderations regarding a child’s welfare are rarely, if ever, static,” and that often “the child’s environment is constantly evolving.” Id. at 163 ; see also In re H.J., 1999 UT App 238, ¶ 45 , 986 P.2d 115 (stating that a child’s “needs and circumsta | 1 | 1 |
Sill v. Sillgreen2 sentences2019Petitions to Modify ¶32 Hefley argues that the Stipulated Decree "unreasonably restricts [her] from filing any petition to modify in this matter." Specifically, she claims "it prevents the court from ever addressing the best interest of the children or change in circumstances, even in the case of abuse and/or neglect." We also reject this argument. ¶33 "[P]arties cannot stipulate away the district court's statutory responsibility to conduct a best-interest analysis ... to ensure that any custody arrangement ... serves the child's best interest." R.B. v. L.B. , 2014 UT App 270 , ¶ 16, 339 P.3d 2019Petitions to Modify ¶32 Hefley argues that the Stipulated Decree "unreasonably restricts [her] from filing any petition to modify in this matter." Specifically, she claims "it prevents the court from ever addressing the best interest of the children or change in circumstances, even in the case of abuse and/or neglect." We also reject this argument. ¶33 "[P]arties cannot stipulate away the district court's statutory responsibility to conduct a best-interest analysis ... to ensure that any custody arrangement ... serves the child's best interest." R.B. v. L.B. , 2014 UT App 270 , ¶ 16, 339 P.3d | 1 | 1 |
| In Re EHgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re G.J.C.red1 sentence2019Because the juvenile court found that Father had abandoned the Children, she asserts that the court should have automatically concluded that it was in the Children's best interest to terminate Father's parental rights. ¶18 We have indeed previously stated that "where grounds for termination are established, the conclusion that termination will be in a child's best interest follows almost automatically ." In re G.J.C. , 2016 UT App 147 , ¶ 25, 379 P.3d 58 (emphasis added) (quotation simplified), abrogated by In re B.T.B. , 2018 UT App 157 , 436 P.3d 206 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re J.J.W.
green
2 sentences2026As we have previously recognized, “a court’s inquiry into the strict necessity of termination should take place as part of the best-interest inquiry that comprises the second part of the termination test.” In re J.J.W, 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 28 , 520 P.3d 38 . 2026A best-interest analysis “is a wide-ranging inquiry that asks a court to weigh the entirety of the circumstances, including a parent’s past behavior, to determine what is in the best interest of the child under all of the circumstances,” In re J.M., 2020 UT App 52, ¶ 35 , 463 P.3d 66 , and “[w]e review deferentially a lower court’s best- interest determination,” In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 18 , 520 P.3d 38 . | 5 | 2022–2026 |
Powell v. Cannon
green
2 sentences2026“The question of whether an order is final and appealable is a question of law.” Powell v. Cannon, 2008 UT 19, ¶ 9 , 179 P.3d 799 (footnote omitted). ¶9 As to the merits of the appeal itself, the GAL argues that the juvenile court misinterpreted the analytical framework for a best-interest analysis and ignored some of its own findings when considering the factors bearing on the best-interest analysis. 2026“The question of whether an order is final and appealable is a question of law.” Powell v. Cannon, 2008 UT 19, ¶ 9 , 179 P.3d 799 (footnote omitted). ¶9 As to the merits of the appeal itself, the GAL argues that the juvenile court misinterpreted the analytical framework for a best-interest analysis and ignored some of its own findings when considering the factors bearing on the best-interest analysis. | 2 | 2025–2026 |
In re L.L.B.
green
2 sentences2024Our court recently acknowledged, but did not answer, this same question in In re L.L.B. when it determined that it did not need to address the issue because “even without considering the strictly necessary part of the best-interest analysis . . . there [was] not clear and convincing evidence supporting the district court’s conclusion that termination of Father’s parental rights was in [the child’s] best interest.” 2023 UT App 66, ¶ 18 , 532 P.3d 592 . 2023In Father’s view, the only support for the district court’s ruling was Mother’s testimony that Stepfather and Child love and care for each other and the report of the GAL stating that Child (1) was not 20210942-CA 8 2023 UT App 66 In re L.L.B. comfortable around Father, (2) had a close relationship with Stepfather, and (3) wanted to be adopted by Stepfather. ¶21 The best-interest inquiry “is intended as a holistic examination of all of the relevant circumstances that might affect a child’s situation.” Id. ¶ 29 (cleaned up). | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Hutchison v. Hutchison
green
2 sentences2020Id. 2016And in fact on appeal he quotes extensively, both directly and indirectly, from Hutchison v. Hutchison, 649 P.2d 38 (Utah 1982), In Hutchison, our supreme court listed factors to be considered in a best-interest inquiry. | 2 | 2016–2020 |
Doyle v. Doyle
green
2 sentences2018But Zavala clarified that Elmer "does not permit the best-interest inquiry to swallow up the changed-circumstances inquiry: 'Even an overwhelming case for the best interest of the child could not compensate for a lack of proof of a change in circumstances.' " Zavala , 2016 UT App 6 , ¶ 18, 366 P.3d 422 (quoting Doyle v. Doyle , 2011 UT 42 , ¶ 38, 258 P.3d 553 ). 2018But Zavala clarified that Elmer "does not permit the best-interest inquiry to swallow up the changed-circumstances inquiry: 'Even an overwhelming case for the best interest of the child could not compensate for a lack of proof of a change in circumstances.' " Zavala , 2016 UT App 6 , ¶ 18, 366 P.3d 422 (quoting Doyle v. Doyle , 2011 UT 42 , ¶ 38, 258 P.3d 553 ). | 2 | 2016–2018 |
In re N.E.
neutral
1 sentence2025As we have previously 20240672-CA 11 2025 UT App 156 In re N.E. recognized, “a court’s inquiry into the strict necessity of termination should take place as part of the best-interest inquiry that comprises the second part of the termination test.” In re J.J.W, 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 28 , 520 P.3d 38 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re A.T...
neutral
1 sentence2024The parental presumption means that “where one party to [a custody dispute] is a nonparent, there is a presumption in favor of the natural parent, even if an ordinary best-interest inquiry would come out in favor of the nonparent.” In re A.T., 2020 UT App 50, ¶ 12 , 464 P.3d 173 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lerman v. Lerman
green
1 sentence2024Indeed, the court found that “[n]o issues were presented during trial as to any major conflicts” and that “there [did] not appear to be any issues or concerns when it comes to the past and present ability of both parties to cooperate and make decisions jointly.” And the court found that both parties had “the maturity 20230913-CA 13 2024 UT App 155 Lerman v. Lerman and willingness and ability to protect [Child] from conflicts that arise between them.” The court also found no “evidence or any concerns” about either party’s “past conduct and demonstrated moral conduct.” ¶29 As we noted in In re C | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Adoption of D.A.T.R.
green
1 sentence2024See id. ¶ 57 (stating that the juvenile court’s “job is to ask: ‘what outcome is in the child’s best interest now?’”) 20230543-CA 17 2024 UT App 185 In re D.A.T.R. (emphasis in original; quotation simplified). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Adoption of J.E...
green
1 sentence2024We conclude the same and will not address the issue further. 20230162-CA 6 2024 UT App 34 In re J.E. situation . . . .” (cleaned up)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re H.M...
neutral
2 sentences2023“Because children inhabit dynamic environments in which their needs and circumstances are 20220774-CA 24 2023 UT App 122 In re H.M. constantly evolving,” the best interest inquiry must “be undertaken in a present-tense fashion, as of the date of the trial or hearing held to decide the question.” In re A.H., 2022 UT App 114, ¶ 34 , 518 P.3d 993 (quotation simplified), cert. granted, 525 P.3d 1279 (Utah 2023). 2023In its findings on unfitness, for example, the court found that Mother “still fails to show any real remorse for her actions and their consequences on the children.” (Emphasis added.) The court also found that Mother “has shown that she cannot stop her destructive behavior regarding false allegations and refuses to take any responsibility regarding the children’s statements to DCFS and law enforcement.” (Emphases added.) Then, in a subsection that was specifically directed at the best interest determination, the court found that Mother’s “intent and the effect of her actions is to disrupt any | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re E.R.
green
1 sentence2022In particular, he takes issue with the court’s conclusion that termination of his parental rights was “strictly necessary” to further Child’s best interest, and with the court’s apparent failure to assess whether a permanent guardianship with Grandparents would serve Child’s best interest as well as adoption would. 20210706-CA 8 2022 UT App 116 In re J.J.W. ¶18 We review deferentially a lower court’s best-interest determination, and will overturn it “only if it either failed to consider all of the facts or considered all of the facts and its decision was nonetheless against the clear weight of | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ross v. Ross
green
2 sentences2021See, e.g., In re H.F., 2019 UT App 204 , ¶ 18 n.6, 455 P.3d 1098 20200039-CA 10 2021 UT App 98 In re Z.C.W. (remanding for a new best-interest analysis, and stating that “any number of circumstances may have changed since trial, and the court should take such changes into account in reconsidering its decision”); Ross v. Ross, 2019 UT App 104, ¶ 20 , 447 P.3d 104 (remanding for renewed consideration of a parent’s relocation, including whether such relocation was in the child’s best interest, and stating that, in reconsidering the relocation question, the court “should consider the present circu 2021See, e.g., In re H.F., 2019 UT App 204 , ¶ 18 n.6, 455 P.3d 1098 20200039-CA 10 2021 UT App 98 In re Z.C.W. (remanding for a new best-interest analysis, and stating that “any number of circumstances may have changed since trial, and the court should take such changes into account in reconsidering its decision”); Ross v. Ross, 2019 UT App 104, ¶ 20 , 447 P.3d 104 (remanding for renewed consideration of a parent’s relocation, including whether such relocation was in the child’s best interest, and stating that, in reconsidering the relocation question, the court “should consider the present circu | 1 | 2021–2021 |
D.D.B. v. J.L.C.
red
1 sentence2019Because the juvenile court found that Father had abandoned the Children, she asserts that the court should have automatically concluded that it was in the Children's best interest to terminate Father's parental rights. ¶18 We have indeed previously stated that "where grounds for termination are established, the conclusion that termination will be in a child's best interest follows almost automatically ." In re G.J.C. , 2016 UT App 147 , ¶ 25, 379 P.3d 58 (emphasis added) (quotation simplified), abrogated by In re B.T.B. , 2018 UT App 157 , 436 P.3d 206 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In Interest Of B.T.B. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Zavala v. Zavala green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Kielkowski v. Kielkowski green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.