M.H. v. State (In re S.H.)

M.H. v. State (In re S.H.)

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of S.H., a person under eighteen years of age.

______________________________

M.H.,

Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040849-CA
 

F I L E D
(December 2, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 455

 

-----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Sharon P. McCully

Attorneys: Tupakk A.G. Renteria, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

Martha Pierce and Suchada Bazzelle, Salt Lake City, Guardians Ad Litem

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    M.H. appeals the decision of the juvenile court to terminate her parental rights in S.H., her son. Under Utah Code section 78-3a-407(1), a juvenile court judge "may terminate all parental rights with respect to a parent if it finds any one of" nine separate grounds to be present. Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-407(1)(a)-(f) (2002). Thus, a juvenile court's finding that any one of the grounds set forth in the statute has been met is sufficient to justify a termination decision. See In re D.B., 2002 UT App 314,¶13 n.4, 57 P.3d 1102.

    The juvenile court found that termination of M.H.'s parental rights was justified under at least four of the grounds enumerated under Utah Code section 78-3a-407(1). Specifically, the court found that termination was appropriate due to: (1) M.H.'s unfitness or incompetency as a parent; (2) M.H.'s unwillingness to remedy the circumstances that caused the child to be in an out-of-home placement, and a substantial likelihood that M.H. will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care in the near future; (3) M.H.'s abuse and neglect of the child; and (4) that only token efforts had been made by M.H. to support or communicate with the child, to prevent neglect of the child, and/or to avoid being an unfit parent. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-407(1)(b)-(d), (f)(i), (f)(ii) and (f)(iv).

    M.H.'s only contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred when it determined that M.H. would not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care in the near future under Utah Code section 78-3a-407(1)(d). M.H. does not argue that the court erred in its conclusions regarding any of the other three grounds. "As a result, we accept these findings as adequately supported by the record . . . ." In re M.E.C., 942 P.2d 955, 960 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). Because each of these grounds "can independently support the juvenile court's order to terminate" her parental rights, id., we hold that the juvenile court did not err when it terminated M.H.'s parental rights in S.H.

    The order of the juvenile court is affirmed.

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge