D.B. v. State (In re H.B.)

D.B. v. State (In re H.B.)

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of H.B., D.B., and D.B.,
persons under eighteen years of age.

______________________________

D.B.,

Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20050007-CA
 

F I L E D
(April 28, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 197

 

-----

Second District Juvenile, Ogden Department

The Honorable L. Kent Bachman

Attorneys: Roy Cole, Ogden, for Appellant

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

-----

Before Judges Davis, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    D.B. appeals the termination of his parental rights, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to support the termination.(1)

    In reviewing an order terminating parental rights, this court "will not disturb the juvenile court's findings and conclusions unless the evidence clearly preponderates against the findings as made or the court has abused its discretion." In re R.A.J., 1999 UT App 329,¶6, 991 P.2d 1118. Additionally, juvenile courts are given a "'wide latitude of discretion as to the judgments arrived at' based upon not only the court's opportunity to judge credibility firsthand, but also based on the juvenile court judges' 'special training, experience, and interest in this field.'" In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66,¶11, 21 P.3d 680 (citations omitted).

    On review of the record, it is apparent that there is ample evidence to support the juvenile court's findings of fact and its ultimate conclusion that grounds for termination were established. It is undisputed that D.B. will be incarcerated until January 2008. The evidence also established that D.B. missed various hearings regarding his children, failed to comply with court orders, failed to provide financial support, and missed several scheduled visitations. The evidence is sufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that D.B. was an unfit parent and neglected his children.

    The juvenile court also had sufficient evidence to determine that termination of D.B.'s rights would be in the children's best interests. Testimony established that the children were thriving in their current placements and had bonded with their new families. Expert testimony established that the children had improved significantly in their placements and had benefitted from the stability. The expert witnesses were unanimous in the opinion that moving the children again would be detrimental and that permanency was needed.

    The underlying implication in D.B.'s petition is that he believes the court should have found an alternative to termination of his rights, such as kinship placement. D.B. asserted at trial that he had family members willing and able to take the children. However, D.B. did not provide any kinship information after the removal of the children in May 2002, and raising it at trial was simply too late. Any kinship preference expires 120 days after the shelter hearing. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-307(8) (2002). Furthermore, evidence at trial established that any displacement of the children, even if not back to D.B., would be harmful to the children.

    Accordingly, the termination of D.B.'s parental rights is affirmed.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. D.B. also asserts that the juvenile court failed to make appropriate findings and did not properly apply the law to the facts. However, he did not set forth any further specifics or argument regarding how the juvenile court erred, thus, this mere assertion is too vague to address.