State of Utah, in the interest of A.M. and M.S.
Annotate this Case----ooOoo----
State of Utah, in the interest
of A.M. and M.S.,
persons under eighteen years
of age.
______________________________
D.S. and C.S.,
Appellants,
v.
State of Utah,
Appellee.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20000286-CA
F I L E D
September 12, 2002
2002 UT App 292
-----
Fourth District Juvenile,
Provo Department
The Honorable Leslie D.
Brown
Attorneys:
Margaret P. Lindsay, Provo,
and Gary J. Anderson, Orem, for Appellants
Mark L. Shurtleff and John
M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake
City, Guardian Ad Litem
-----
Before Judges Bench, Orme,
and Thorne.
BENCH, Judge:
Appellants D.S. (Mother) and C.S. (Father) appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to M.S. Permanent custody of A.M. was given to her natural father in the same court order; however, on appeal, Appellants only raise issues involving M.S.
Appellants argue that the juvenile court erred in terminating their respective parental rights to M.S. because the evidence produced at trial is insufficient to sustain "several important findings of fact by the juvenile court." When challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, an "'appellant must first marshal all the evidence that supports the finding, and . . . then demonstrate to us that, despite this evidence, the finding is so lacking in support as to be "against the clear weight of the evidence" and, thus clearly erroneous.'" In re E.K., 913 P.2d 771, 775-76 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (citations omitted).
Both Appellants failed to meet their marshaling burden. Although they provided "a comprehensive catalogue of all testimony in the record," they failed to "properly focus[] [the] marshaling of the evidence supporting [the] particular findings" they attack. A.K. & R. Whipple Plumbing & Heating v. Aspen Constr., 1999 UT App 97,¶28, 977 P.2d 518. Furthermore, they omit relevant evidence, such as the fact that M.S. was injured during a domestic violence episode between Mother and Father. In any event, based on our review of the record, the juvenile court's findings are not against the clear weight of the evidence.
Mother argues that the evidence produced at trial is insufficient to support four of the juvenile court's factual findings and that the juvenile court's legal conclusions are not adequately supported by the findings of fact. However, for Mother to prevail, "we must be convinced that the juvenile court's findings were against the clear weight of the evidence." In re S.L., 1999 UT App 390,¶23, 995 P.2d 17 (quotations and citation omitted). Furthermore, we grant the juvenile court "'wide latitude of discretion as to the judgments arrived at' based upon . . . the court's opportunity to judge credibility firsthand, . . . [and] on the juvenile court judges' 'special training, experience and interest in this field, and . . . devot[ed] . . . attention to such matters . . . .'" In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66,¶11, 21 P.3d 680 (fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh alterations in original) (citation omitted). Our review of the record indicates that there is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings, which amply support its ruling. We therefore conclude that the evidence was sufficient to terminate Mother's parental rights to M.S., and that the juvenile court did not exceed its discretion in terminating her parental rights.
Father challenges two of the juvenile court's findings, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support these findings of fact. Father's arguments also fail. The findings are not against the clear weight of the evidence.
Finally, the juvenile court found that M.S. was "removed from the home in April of 1999 [and] a treatment plan was entered into by all of the parties in May of 1999 [and] neither party has substantially complied with the treatment plan." Neither Appellant disputes this finding. Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-408(3) (Supp. 2002), provides, [i]f a child has been placed in the custody of the division and the parent or parents fail to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of a plan within six months after the date on which the child was placed or the plan was commenced, . . . that failure to comply is evidence of failure of parental adjustment. Under Utah law, failure of parental adjustment is sufficient to terminate parental rights and is an adequate basis, even by itself, for affirming the juvenile court's decision. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-407(1)(e) (Supp 2002); see also Orton v. Carter, 970 P.2d 1254, 1260 (Utah 1998) ("[A]n appellate court may affirm a 'judgment, order, or decree appealed from if it is sustainable on any legal ground or theory apparent on the record,' even though that ground or theory was not identified by the lower court as the basis of its ruling." (Citation omitted.)).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
-----
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
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.