permanency hearing in Utah

2018"This provision clearly contemplates the possibility that if a termination trial is held prior to a permanency hearing and the parent's rights are terminated, then the parent may never receive a permanency hearing." In re S.F. , 2012 UT App 10 , ¶ 53, 268 P.3d 831 . ¶23 The State concedes that this process is "the norm" and that, "[i]n child welfare proceedings initiated by the State, it is more typical that the proceedings begin with a petition pursuant to Utah Code [section] 78A-6-304" seeking adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency.

2018“This provision clearly contemplates the possibility that if a termination trial is held prior to a permanency hearing and the parent’s rights are terminated, then the parent may never receive a permanency hearing.” In re S.F., 2012 UT App 10 , ¶ 53, 268 P.3d 831 . ¶23 The State concedes that this process is “the norm” and that, “[i]n child welfare proceedings initiated by the State, it is more typical that the proceedings begin with a petition pursuant to Utah Code [section] 78A-6-304” seeking adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency.

2018"This provision clearly contemplates the possibility that if a termination trial is held prior to a permanency hearing and the parent's rights are terminated, then the parent may never receive a permanency hearing." In re S.F. , 2012 UT App 10 , ¶ 53, 268 P.3d 831 . ¶23 The State concedes that this process is "the norm" and that, "[i]n child welfare proceedings initiated by the State, it is more typical that the proceedings begin with a petition pursuant to Utah Code [section] 78A-6-304" seeking adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency.

2018“This provision clearly contemplates the possibility that if a termination trial is held prior to a permanency hearing and the parent’s rights are terminated, then the parent may never receive a permanency hearing.” In re S.F., 2012 UT App 10 , ¶ 53, 268 P.3d 831 . ¶23 The State concedes that this process is “the norm” and that, “[i]n child welfare proceedings initiated by the State, it is more typical that the proceedings begin with a petition pursuant to Utah Code [section] 78A-6-304” seeking adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency.

2018Once the State filed its abuse and neglect petition, the parents contend they then "had a due process right to an adjudication of the abuse, neglect, and/or dependency petition ..., and to a dispositional hearing [thirty] days later." They assert that "[t]he dispositional statute clearly contemplates that there will be a hearing to determine whether reunification services are appropriate, and if not, then the case proceeds to a permanency hearing, where a petition to terminate parental rights could be filed." 3 In other words, the parents contend that, once the State filed its abuse and neglec

2018Once the State filed its abuse and neglect petition, the parents contend they then "had a due process right to an adjudication of the abuse, neglect, and/or dependency petition ..., and to a dispositional hearing [thirty] days later." They assert that "[t]he dispositional statute clearly contemplates that there will be a hearing to determine whether reunification services are appropriate, and if not, then the case proceeds to a permanency hearing, where a petition to terminate parental rights could be filed." 3 In other words, the parents contend that, once the State filed its abuse and neglec

2017By stipulating that reunification efforts could be terminated, Father invited the very error he now claims that the juvenile court committed. “[W]here a party makes an affirmative representation encouraging the court to proceed without further consideration of an issue, an appellate court need not consider the party’s ob jection to that aetíon on appeal.” State v. Moa, 2012 UT 28, ¶ 27 , 282 P.3d 985 .

2017By stipulating that reunification efforts could be terminated, Father invited the very error he now claims that the juvenile court committed. “[W]here a party makes an affirmative representation encouraging the court to proceed without further consideration of an issue, an appellate court need not consider the party’s ob jection to that aetíon on appeal.” State v. Moa, 2012 UT 28, ¶ 27 , 282 P.3d 985 .

2025Given these circumstances, the findings at Sister’s permanency hearing do not change the operative facts relevant to Child’s permanence, which 20240512-CA and 20240524-CA 7 2025 UT App 182 In re G.C. was necessarily litigated within his own permanency timeline.

2025Given these circumstances, the findings at Sister’s permanency hearing do not change the operative facts relevant to Child’s permanence, which 20240512-CA and 20240524-CA 7 2025 UT App 182 In re G.C. was necessarily litigated within his own permanency timeline.

2024First of all, Father had refused “to obtain a mental health evaluation,” despite the fact that DCFS caseworkers had set up appointments for Father to receive the evaluation and had “encourage[d] him to complete” it “prior to the permanency hearing as it would show his efforts in the reunification process.” In addition, the court found that Father had failed to “participate in meaningful family therapy.” And most significantly, it found that Father had failed in his overarching task of providing “an emotionally safe or stable home to which the children may be returned.” The court specifically n

2024First of all, Father had refused “to obtain a mental health evaluation,” despite the fact that DCFS caseworkers had set up appointments for Father to receive the evaluation and had “encourage[d] him to complete” it “prior to the permanency hearing as it would show his efforts in the reunification process.” In addition, the court found that Father had failed to “participate in meaningful family therapy.” And most significantly, it found that Father had failed in his overarching task of providing “an emotionally safe or stable home to which the children may be returned.” The court specifically n

2019The judge in this case not only heard Grandmother's testimony at the permanency hearing, which provided the court with an opportunity for "a thoughtful, experience-based evaluation" of Grandmother, see In re Z.D. , 2006 UT 54 , ¶ 49, 147 P.3d 401 , but had also worked with Grandmother for more than a year, giving the court an extended "opportunity to judge [Grandmother's] credibility firsthand," see In re E.R. , 2001 UT App 66 , ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680 .

2019The judge in this case not only heard Grandmother's testimony at the permanency hearing, which provided the court with an opportunity for "a thoughtful, experience-based evaluation" of Grandmother, see In re Z.D. , 2006 UT 54 , ¶ 49, 147 P.3d 401 , but had also worked with Grandmother for more than a year, giving the court an extended "opportunity to judge [Grandmother's] credibility firsthand," see In re E.R. , 2001 UT App 66 , ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680 .

2019"Once a court has determined that a child has been abused or neglected, that court is given broad discretion in determining the child's permanent placement." In re L.M. , 2001 UT App 314 , ¶ 19, 37 P.3d 1188 .

2019"Once a court has determined that a child has been abused or neglected, that court is given broad discretion in determining the child's permanent placement." In re L.M. , 2001 UT App 314 , ¶ 19, 37 P.3d 1188 .

2019The judge in this case not only heard Grandmother's testimony at the permanency hearing, which provided the court with an opportunity for "a thoughtful, experience-based evaluation" of Grandmother, see In re Z.D. , 2006 UT 54 , ¶ 49, 147 P.3d 401 , but had also worked with Grandmother for more than a year, giving the court an extended "opportunity to judge [Grandmother's] credibility firsthand," see In re E.R. , 2001 UT App 66 , ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680 .

2019The judge in this case not only heard Grandmother's testimony at the permanency hearing, which provided the court with an opportunity for "a thoughtful, experience-based evaluation" of Grandmother, see In re Z.D. , 2006 UT 54 , ¶ 49, 147 P.3d 401 , but had also worked with Grandmother for more than a year, giving the court an extended "opportunity to judge [Grandmother's] credibility firsthand," see In re E.R. , 2001 UT App 66 , ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680 .

2019"When a foundation for the court's decision exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not engage in a reweighing of the evidence." In re B.R. , 2007 UT 82 , ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435 . ¶27 Here, Mother contends that the evidence presented at the permanency hearing was not sufficient for the juvenile court to establish that Grandmother was an appropriate permanent placement; specifically, she argues that Grandmother's testimony alone did not establish proof by a preponderance of the evidence that guardianship with Grandmother was in Children's best interests.

2019"When a foundation for the court's decision exists in the evidence, an appellate court may not engage in a reweighing of the evidence." In re B.R. , 2007 UT 82 , ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435 . ¶27 Here, Mother contends that the evidence presented at the permanency hearing was not sufficient for the juvenile court to establish that Grandmother was an appropriate permanent placement; specifically, she argues that Grandmother's testimony alone did not establish proof by a preponderance of the evidence that guardianship with Grandmother was in Children's best interests.

2007"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim presents a question of law that is . . . reviewed for correctness." State v. Smith, 2005 UT 57, ¶ 6 , 122 P.3d 615 . ¶ 11 Mother also raises issues that her due process rights were violated because she was not provided adequate notice as to the purpose of the disposition hearing, that the juvenile court erred when it refused to hold a permanency hearing prior to terminating the court's jurisdiction, and that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's permanency order.

2007"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim presents a question of law that is . . . reviewed for correctness." State v. Smith, 2005 UT 57, ¶ 6 , 122 P.3d 615 . ¶ 11 Mother also raises issues that her due process rights were violated because she was not provided adequate notice as to the purpose of the disposition hearing, that the juvenile court erred when it refused to hold a permanency hearing prior to terminating the court's jurisdiction, and that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's permanency order.

2006When, as here, a parent has no notice that termination of parental rights will be at issue, a permanency hearing ought not result in findings that can be used against the parent to establish grounds for the termination of his or her rights at a later termination *250 trial. [21] ¶ 79 Even to the extent that the two hearings might have some practical overlap of evidence, a parent is entitled to be informed "that a particular issue is being considered by a court." In re A.H., 2004 UT App 39 at ¶ 11 , 86 P.3d 745 (quotations and citation omitted).

2006When, as here, a parent has no notice that termination of parental rights will be at issue, a permanency hearing ought not result in findings that can be used against the parent to establish grounds for the termination of his or her rights at a later termi nation trial. 21 ¶ 79 Even to the extent that the two hearings might have some practical overlap of evidence, a parent is entitled to be informed “that a particular issue is being considered by a court.” In re A.H., 2004 UT App 39 at ¶ 11 , 86 P.3d 745 (quotations and citation omitted).

2006When, as here, a parent has no notice that termination of parental rights will be at issue, a permanency hearing ought not result in findings that can be used against the parent to establish grounds for the termination of his or her rights at a later termination *250 trial. [21] ¶ 79 Even to the extent that the two hearings might have some practical overlap of evidence, a parent is entitled to be informed "that a particular issue is being considered by a court." In re A.H., 2004 UT App 39 at ¶ 11 , 86 P.3d 745 (quotations and citation omitted).

2006When, as here, a parent has no notice that termination of parental rights will be at issue, a permanency hearing ought not result in findings that can be used against the parent to establish grounds for the termination of his or her rights at a later termi nation trial. 21 ¶ 79 Even to the extent that the two hearings might have some practical overlap of evidence, a parent is entitled to be informed “that a particular issue is being considered by a court.” In re A.H., 2004 UT App 39 at ¶ 11 , 86 P.3d 745 (quotations and citation omitted).

2006III, 2003 UT App 397 , ¶ 2 n. 1, 81 P.3d 790 ("Although A.E. once stood for the proposition that a permanency hearing (previously called a dispositional review hearing) could not be combined with a termination of parental rights hearing, it has since been superseded by statute." (citation omitted)).

2006III, 2003 UT App 397 , ¶ 2 n. 1, 81 P.3d 790 ("Although A.E. once stood for the proposition that a permanency hearing (previously called a dispositional review hearing) could not be combined with a termination of parental rights hearing, it has since been superseded by statute." (citation omitted)).