10 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2024 9 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 G.D...green2 sentences2023See Utah Code §§ 80-4- 104(12)(b), -301(1); see also In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60 , ¶¶ 25 n.5, 64 (stating that the “best interest analysis should be undertaken from the child’s point of view”). “[W]hen two placement options would equally benefit a child, the strictly-necessary requirement operates as a preference for a placement option that does not necessitate termination over an option that does.” In re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 75 , 491 P.3d 867 ; see also In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 29 (“Courts must start the best interest analysis from the legislatively mandated position that wherever possibl 2023See In re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 81 , 491 P.3d 867 (finding that a juvenile court’s strictly necessary analysis was not deficient where the court declined to “admit and consider the evidence [the appellants] presented after trial” because neither Utah law nor Utah caselaw “requires a juvenile court to consider supplemental evidence that merely elaborates on a factor the court already considered in its ‘strictly necessary’ analysis—especially when that evidence does not address or refute the considerations on which the court relied to reach its conclusion”). ¶28 Relatedly, Father glosses over the | 3 | 4 |
In re B.W...green2 sentences2023“If the child can be equally protected and benefited by an option other than termination, termination is not strictly necessary.” Id. (quotation simplified). ¶12 The strictly necessary analysis “is designed to ensure that the court pause long enough to thoughtfully consider the range of available options that could promote the child’s welfare and best interest.” In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60 , ¶ 69. “[I]f a court has complied with its statutory obligations, its resultant best interest determination is entitled to deference.” In re B.W., 2022 UT App 131, ¶ 69 . 2023See In re B.W., 2022 UT App 131, ¶ 69 . ¶14 Mother next asserts that the court’s focus on her and Grandmother’s inability to “co-parent” the children was inappropriate and led it to consider the strictly necessary analysis from the adults’ perspective rather than the children’s perspective. | 1 | 1 |
In re J.J.W.green1 sentence2023See Utah Code §§ 80-4- 104(12)(b), -301(1); see also In re B.T.B., 2020 UT 60 , ¶¶ 25 n.5, 64 (stating that the “best interest analysis should be undertaken from the child’s point of view”). “[W]hen two placement options would equally benefit a child, the strictly-necessary requirement operates as a preference for a placement option that does not necessitate termination over an option that does.” In re G.D., 2021 UT 19, ¶ 75 , 491 P.3d 867 ; see also In re J.J.W., 2022 UT App 116, ¶ 29 (“Courts must start the best interest analysis from the legislatively mandated position that wherever possibl | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Adoption of J.E...
green
1 sentence2024The UAA applies to district courts and reads as follows: “The district court may terminate an individual’s parental rights in a child if . . . the individual’s parental rights are terminated on grounds described in Title 80, Chapter 4, Termination and (continued…) 20230162-CA 5 2024 UT App 34 In re J.E. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re J.P...
green
1 sentence2023Thus, a parent’s mere dissatisfaction “with the manner 20230255-CA 5 2023 UT App 75 In re K.R. in which the juvenile court weighed the evidence . . . has no traction on appeal.” In re J.P., 2021 UT App 134, ¶ 23 . ¶13 Mother argues that the court’s finding that Brother was upset when she missed visits should weigh against a finding that termination was strictly necessary. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hall v. Hall
green
1 sentence2023It is not a case “where there is a matrix of possible factual findings and we cannot ascertain the [juvenile] court’s actual findings.” Hall v. Hall, 858 P.2d 1018 , 1025–26 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re H.M...
neutral
1 sentence2023Again, in the subsection of its ruling that addressed the best interest determination, the court found that Mother “is unable to accept any court order that does not grant her primary care and custody of the children and will distort facts and perceptions until it makes sense to her that she should have custody.” And in the subsection that more particularly addressed the strictly necessary inquiry, the court found that “Mother has 20220774-CA 34 2023 UT App 122 In re H.M. not shown that she can stop the false allegations against” Father and that “[a]ny contact the mother has with the children | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re K.R...
neutral
1 sentence2023Thus, a parent’s mere dissatisfaction “with the manner 20230255-CA 5 2023 UT App 75 In re K.R. in which the juvenile court weighed the evidence . . . has no traction on appeal.” In re J.P., 2021 UT App 134, ¶ 23 . ¶13 Mother argues that the court’s finding that Brother was upset when she missed visits should weigh against a finding that termination was strictly necessary. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re S.S.
green
1 sentence2022“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” In re S.S., 2015 UT App 230 , ¶ 20, 360 P.3d 16 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
S.E. v. State
neutral
1 sentence2022“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” In re S.S., 2015 UT App 230 , ¶ 20, 360 P.3d 16 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re D.G.
green
2 sentences2022Because we ultimately grant the State’s motion, we do not reconsider the merits of Mother’s argument concerning the juvenile court’s consideration of the strictly-necessary requirement. 20210836-CA 3 2022 UT App 128 In re D.G. ¶6 Second, we address Mother’s argument that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. 2022Our rules do not allow Mother to seek rehearing on our decision not to order full briefing on the strictly-necessary issue raised in her petition, see id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re B.T.B.
green
1 sentence2020In Interest of B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 1 , 436 P.3d 206 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Interest Of B.T.B.
green
1 sentence2020In Interest of B.T.B., 2018 UT App 157, ¶ 1 , 436 P.3d 206 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |