M.E. v. State

M.E. v. State

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

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

______________________________

M.E.,

Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040786-CA
 

F I L E D
(December 2, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 458

 

-----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Kimberly K. Hornak

Attorneys: Taniela Fiefia, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

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

Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    M.E., father of S.E., appeals the termination of his parental rights.

    M.E. asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the termination of his parental rights in S.E. "Findings of fact in a parental rights termination proceeding are overturned only if they are clearly erroneous." In re G.B., 2002 UT App 270,¶9, 53 P.3d 963 (quotations and citation omitted). Conclusions of law are reviewed for correctness. See id. at ¶11. Juvenile courts, however, are given a "wide latitude of discretion as to the judgments arrived at" based upon the juvenile court's special training and experience regarding parental rights matters. In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66,¶11, 21 P.3d 680.

    After trial, the juvenile court found as a matter of fact that M.E. had failed to comply with his service plan after S.E.'s removal, failed to maintain stable housing and employment, and failed to obtain drug treatment or complete parenting classes. M.E. additionally had tested positive for methamphetamine use in several urinalysis tests (UAs), and had not consistently provided UAs when required. The court also found that there was a substantial likelihood that M.E. would not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care in the near future, and that his drug habit negatively affected his ability to parent.

    These findings are supported by the evidence at trial, and are thus not clearly erroneous. M.E.'s testimony established that he had lived in at least three different places over the course of a year. M.E. also testified that he worked construction off and on and picked up odd jobs. He admitted that he had not obtained drug treatment although required to do so. He also admitted that he missed UAs and provided several dirty UAs. He also stated he did not pay child support because there was no court order requiring him to pay.

    Additionally, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) workers testified that M.E. did not provide proof of stable housing or employment, nor completion of required parenting classes. Furthermore, M.E. failed to participate in drug treatment and provided several dirty UAs. His conduct did not comply with his service plan. The testimony from the DCFS workers and M.E.'s own testimony sufficiently support the juvenile court's findings of fact.

    Likewise, the juvenile court's findings of fact support the conclusion that grounds to terminate M.E.'s parental rights were established. The juvenile court terminated M.E.'s parental rights on the grounds of neglect, unfitness, failure of parental adjustment, and token efforts. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-407(1)(b)-(f) (2002). Any one of these grounds is sufficient to justify the termination of parental rights. See id. § 78-3a-407(1) (providing for termination of parental rights if "any one of the following" grounds are established).

    Failure of parental adjustment means the parent is unable or unwilling to substantially correct the circumstances or conduct that led to the removal of the child, even though reunification services were provided. See id. § 78-3a-403(2) (2002). The juvenile court found that M.E. failed to comply with his service plan, which is evidence of failure of parental adjustment. See id. § 78-3a-408(3) (2002). In addition to M.E.'s failure to comply with his service plan, the failure of parental adjustment is supported by his continued drug use, which was the key conduct leading to the removal of S.E. The facts support the conclusion that M.E. was unwilling or unable to correct the circumstances leading to the removal because he did not obtain drug treatment and continued to use drugs. Thus, this ground for termination is supported.

    Furthermore, the court's conclusion of unfitness is supported by M.E.'s habitual use of "dangerous drugs that render the parent unable to care for the child." Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-408(2)(c). Additionally, because M.E. made only token efforts to avoid being an unfit parent, again because of continued drug use, as well as lack of stable housing and employment and failure to provide support, termination was supported under section 78-3a-407(1)(f). In sum, more than one of the grounds for termination were sufficiently supported by the juvenile court's findings. As a result, the juvenile court did not err in terminating M.E.'s parental rights.

    Accordingly, the termination of M.E.'s parental rights is affirmed.

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge