P.P. v. State (In re W.P.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, in the interest of W.P. and R.P., persons under eighteen years of age. ______________________________ P.P., Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20050910-CA F I L E D (December 8, 2005) 2005 UT App 535 ----Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department, 441752 The Honorable Sharon McCully Attorneys: Gary L. Bell, South Jordan, for Appellant Mark L. Shurtleff and Carol L.C. Verdoia, Salt Lake City, for Appellee Martha Pierce and Suchada P. Bazelle, Salt Lake City, Guardians Ad Litem ----- Before Judges Bench, Greenwood, and McHugh. PER CURIAM: P.P. appeals the termination of her parental rights with respect to W.P. and R.P. She asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) provided reasonable services. Utah Code section 78-3a-407(1) provides the grounds for termination of parental rights, any one of which is sufficient to support termination. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-407(1) (Supp. 2005); In re F.C. III, 2003 UT App 397,¶6, 81 P.3d 790. In addition, Utah Code section 78-3a-407(3)(a) provides that, in any case where the juvenile court orders reunification services, "the court must find that the division made reasonable efforts to provide those services before the court may terminate the parent's rights under Subsection (1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), or (h)." Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-407(3)(a). Subsection (1)(a), which is specifically omitted from section 407(3)(a), states that the juvenile court may terminate parental rights if it finds "that the parent has abandoned the minor." Id. § 78-3a-407(1)(a). Because one of the grounds on which P.P.'s parental rights were terminated was abandonment, "the juvenile court was not required to enter a finding that DCFS made reasonable efforts to provide reunification services to [P.P.] prior to terminating [her] parental rights in [W.P. and R.P.]." In re F.C. III, 2003 UT App 397 at ¶6. Thus, P.P.'s argument regarding sufficiency of the evidence fails. Moreover, rehabilitation is "a two-way street which 'requires commitment on the part of the parents, as well as the availability of services from the State.'" In re P.H., 783 P.2d 565, 572 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (quoting In re J.C.O., 734 P.2d 458, 463 (Utah 1987)); see also In re M.S., 806 P.2d 1216, 1219 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). "The parent must be willing to 'acknowledge past deficiencies and [exhibit a] desire to improve as a parent and correct the abuses and neglect.'" In re P.H., 783 P.2d at 572 (quoting In re M.A.V., 736 P.2d 1031, 1035 (Utah Ct. App. 1987)). While P.P. complains that she had difficulty getting along with the DCFS caseworkers assigned to her, the juvenile court found that P.P. failed to complete--or even begin--certain requirements of her service plan, failed to keep in contact with DCFS, and failed to take advantage of assistance that was offered. The court's findings are supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge ______________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge 20050910-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
