State of Utah, in the interest of C.B.Annotate this Case
State of Utah, in the interest
a person under eighteen years of age.
State of Utah,
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20000603-CA
F I L E D
September 7, 2001 2001 UT App 261 -----
Third District Juvenile,
Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Joseph W. Anderson
John E. Laherty, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Carol Verdoia, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem
Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Orme.
Appellant is correct that "best interest" in the present context is a conclusion of law, or at least a finding of ultimate fact, rather than a factual finding. Appellant is also correct that the findings in this case should have more precisely focused on the requirements of Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-410 (1996). Nor is there any question, as a general proposition, that greater detail in the findings of fact would have been appropriate.
Nonetheless, the findings, taken as a whole and especially in the context of the essentially undisputed evidence in this case,(1) amply support the conclusion that termination of appellant's parental rights is in the child's best interest. While not couched specifically in terms of "best interest," findings 6-8 and 11-14, especially when read in the context of the court's two legal conclusions, are adequate support for that conclusion.
Gregory K. Orme, Judge -----
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Judith M. Billings, Judge
1. See, e.g., Kinkella v. Baugh, 660 P.2d 233, 236 (Utah 1983) (holding failure to make finding was harmless error where pertinent evidence was uncontroverted).