7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2011 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State in Interest of MLgreen2 sentences2009See generally id. at 561 ("[C]ase law certainly suggests that the juvenile court must consider a parent's ability at the time of the termination hearing in determining whether termination is appropriate."). 2009See generally id. at 561 ("[Clase law certainly suggests that the juvenile court must consider a parent's ability at the time of the termination hearing in determining whether termination is appropriate."). | 2 | 4 |
State Ex Rel. Gcgreen2 sentences2009See also In re G.C., 2008 UT App 270, ¶ 13 , 191 P.3d 55 (concluding that testimonial evidence concerning alleged criminal behavior was properly considered in determining a parent's current fitness). 2009See also In re G.C., 2008 UT App 270, ¶ 13 , 191 P.3d 55 (concluding that testimonial evidence concerning alleged criminal behavior was properly considered in determining a parent's current fitness). | 2 | 2 |
In Re State in Interest of Jpgreen1 sentence2011Indeed, we have recognized that "a situation may arise where there are grounds for termination, and adoption would be the best goal for the children, but at the time of the termination hearing, termination may not be in the best interest of the children." Id. 112 ; see also In re J.P., 921 P.2d at 1020 (Orme, P.J., dissenting) ("As an older child with an existing relationship with her mother and a desire to continue that relationship, the need for continuity and a measure of stability in her life may well be enhanced by ... [rlemaining with a loving proctor mother who can better fulfill her da | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Walter B.green1 sentence1998P.H. v. Harrison, 783 P.2d 565, 570, 572 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (holding “state must demonstrate that the parent ‘cannot or will not *561 correct the evils which exist,’ ” (quoting In re Walter B., 577 P.2d 119, 124 (Utah 1978)), because “ ‘[cjhildren cannot remain in limbo indefinitely where there is no reasonable likelihood of their parents gaining necessary parenting abilities.’” (quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
STATE IN INTEREST OF MEC v. Stategreen1 sentence1998M.E.C., 942 P.2d at 958 (affirming termination where juvenile court found “grounds existed at the time the [treatment] plan was ordered, and continued to exist at the time of the termination hearing.”); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State in Interest of PH v. Harrisongreen1 sentence1998P.H. v. Harrison, 783 P.2d 565, 570, 572 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (holding “state must demonstrate that the parent ‘cannot or will not *561 correct the evils which exist,’ ” (quoting In re Walter B., 577 P.2d 119, 124 (Utah 1978)), because “ ‘[cjhildren cannot remain in limbo indefinitely where there is no reasonable likelihood of their parents gaining necessary parenting abilities.’” (quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Er
green
1 sentence2011Indeed, we have recognized that "a situation may arise where there are grounds for termination, and adoption would be the best goal for the children, but at the time of the termination hearing, termination may not be in the best interest of the children." Id. 112 ; see also In re J.P., 921 P.2d at 1020 (Orme, P.J., dissenting) ("As an older child with an existing relationship with her mother and a desire to continue that relationship, the need for continuity and a measure of stability in her life may well be enhanced by ... [rlemaining with a loving proctor mother who can better fulfill her da | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State Ex Rel. Br
green
2 sentences2011I), 2006 UT App 354 , 144 P.3d 231 , to support their claim that the juvenile court failed to acknowledge that they had remedied their parental deficiencies by the time of the termination hearing. 2011I), 2006 UT App 354 , 144 P.3d 231 , to support their claim that the juvenile court failed to acknowledge that they had remedied their parental deficiencies by the time of the termination hearing. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.