State of Utah, in the interest of C.C. and S.C.

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of C.C. and S.C.,
persons under eighteen years of age.
______________________________

Y.C.,
Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,
Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010698-CA

F I L E D
June 20, 2002 2002 UT App 212 -----

Third District Juvenile, Tooele Department
The Honorable Charles D. Behrens

Attorneys:
Julie George, 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 Billings, Bench, and Orme.

BILLINGS, Associate Presiding Judge:

Y.C. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights for failure to remedy the circumstances that caused her children, C.C. and S.C., to be in an out-of-home placement, see Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-407(4) (Supp. 2001), and for failure of parental adjustment, see id. § 78-3a-407(5).

Mother first argues the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) diligently provided appropriate services. Although it is far from clear that we should reach the merits given the inadequacy of Mother's efforts to marshal the evidence supporting the juvenile court's finding, the record shows that DCFS provided Mother with three service plans providing abundant services. See In re P.H., 783 P.2d 565, 572 (Utah Ct. App. 1989). During the first plan, which ran from July 20, 2000 to January 20, 2001, DCFS provided Mother with a drug and alcohol assessment and counseling, parenting classes, domestic violence and individual counseling, supervised visitation, and some assistance with transportation and scheduling appointments. During the second plan, which ran from January 20, 2001 to April 20, 2001, DCFS provided Mother with first plan services, except peer parenting replaced parenting classes. During the third plan, which ran from April 20, 2001 to July 23, 2001, DCFS provided Mother with second plan services, a bonding assessment, and drug counseling four times a week.

Mother next argues she should have had overnight visits and trial home placements, but only had a few hours of supervised visitation a month to maintain bonds with C.C. and S.C. Mother did not object to the visitation orders entered following the adjudication or dispositional hearings, nor did she request modification of the service plans. Thus, we conclude Mother waived her right to appeal this issue. See In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66,¶10, 21 P.3d 680.

Finally, Mother argues that because domestic violence, not drug use, was the circumstance that caused the out-of-home placement, and because she substantially complied with the service plans by leaving Father and obtaining appropriate housing, she remedied the circumstances that caused the placement. We disagree with Mother that the "circumstance" that caused the placement was domestic violence. The conclusions of law in the adjudication order indicate that neglect "due to the faults of both parents" caused the placement. Although Mother moved to a shelter, three and a half weeks later and despite a protective order against Father, she returned with the children to Father. Mother then left C.C. alone with Father, despite his history of anger and alcoholism. Shortly thereafter, C.C. was discovered wandering naked in a laundromat near their apartment. The record indicates that when the DCFS social worker arrived, the apartment was in disarray and C.C. and S.C. were malnourished. The adjudication findings also note Mother's history of drug use.

Following the permanency hearing, the juvenile court found that Mother substantially complied with the first service plan and ordered continued reunification services. However, that Mother obtained services, demonstrated some improvement, or even complied with a plan does not establish that she remedied the circumstances that caused the placement of C.C. and S.C. See In re M.L., 965 P.2d 551, 562 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (concluding there was sufficient evidence to terminate mother's parental rights although her progress on second plan was more substantial, because she failed to internalize what had been taught and her parenting ability remained inadequate). Although Mother received approximately a year of services, the record shows Mother "was incapable of adequately parenting [C.C. and S.C.] at the time of trial." In re S.L., 1999 UT App 390,¶28, 995 P.2d 17. Moreover, the juvenile court's determination that it was unlikely that she would be able to provide adequate parental care in the near future is also supported by sufficient evidence.

Under settled Utah law, we affirm the juvenile court's conclusions that Mother failed to remedy the circumstances that caused the placement and experienced failure of parental adjustment.
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings,
Associate Presiding Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge