State v. N.F. (In re A.F.)

State v. N.F. (In re A.F.)

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of A.F., J.F., and A.F.,
children under eighteen years of age.

______________________________

State of Utah,

Appellee,

v.

N.F.,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040100-CA
 

F I L E D
(October 28, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 386

 

-----

Third District Juvenile, Tooele Department

The Honorable Elizabeth A. Lindsley

Attorneys: David W. Parker, 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, Greenwood, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

N.F.'s children were removed from her custody for possible sexual abuse by her live-in boyfriend, J.F. Two days after removal, N.F. married J.F. At an adjudication hearing held on May 29, 2003, N.F. admitted the allegations of the petition, as amended, and the juvenile court found the children to be neglected and abused. N.F. did not appeal the adjudication order, and we do not consider any claims of error in the adjudication hearing.

When an appellant "challenges the court's findings of fact, appellant must marshall [sic] the evidence in support of the findings and then demonstrate that despite this evidence, the [juvenile] court's findings are so lacking in support as to be against the clear weight of the evidence." In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66,¶5, 21 P.3d 680 (quotations and citations omitted). To the extent that N.F. challenges the findings of fact supporting termination, she failed to satisfy her marshaling burden and has not demonstrated that the findings, either separately or as a whole, are clearly erroneous.

N.F. claims that the State failed to comply with orders to provide reunification services and visitation. These claims are without merit. The court found that "no reunification services were offered to [N.F.] as she did not want them." The finding that no reunification services were provided because N.F. did not want them is amply supported. At the disposition hearing, N.F.'s counsel stated that she initially declined services, but he then requested services for his client. Both the State and the Guardian ad Litem stated that services would be provided if N.F. wanted them and was willing to comply. Accordingly, the court ordered services conditioned upon N.F.'s compliance and required a mental health evaluation. The State's witnesses testified that N.F. did not request services or obtain the evaluation. Similarly, the claims that the State violated visitation orders is not correct. Although there was a delay in commencing the therapeutic visits ordered by the court, those visits did occur. After the decision was made to terminate therapeutic visits, supervised visits continued.

N.F. argues that the court placed undue emphasis on her marriage to J.F., the alleged abuser of her children. The marriage was clearly relevant to issues regarding N.F.'s willingness to address and correct the situation that led to removal. The pivotal issues concerned N.F.'s disbelief of the children's disclosures, her knowledge of the disclosures, and her response to the information. N.F. claimed that she was not aware of the full extent of the allegations at the time of her marriage to J.F. However, the two witnesses who interviewed the children both testified that the witnesses disclosed the substance of the interviews to N.F. At the time of the termination trial, N.F. remained equivocal about whether she believed the allegations, but she reasoned that it was not important whether she believed the children, as long as she supported them in their ongoing therapy. The juvenile court's consideration of N.F.'s marriage to J.F., the alleged abuser, was appropriate.

Even assuming that the juvenile court did not clearly delineate permanency goals, N.F. did not object, and she was not prejudiced given the facts of this case. She admitted the allegations of the petition supporting the adjudication order. The State filed a termination petition at the disposition hearing one month later, and the trial of that petition was four months later. No record evidence supports the claim of retaliation by the State. All remaining claims are without merit.

N.F. claimed at trial that termination was not in the children's best interests. Nevertheless, trial counsel conceded that N.F. "realizes that these kids aren't coming home as long as she's with [J.F.]" and argued that the children should be placed with relatives in a guardianship without termination of N.F.'s rights. However, the court specifically found that N.F.'s conduct, including "her disbelief of the children and her marrying of the perpetrator" was emotionally and sexually abusive. The court also found that the children are adoptable and in need of permanency in a safe home. N.F. has not demonstrated that these findings are clearly erroneous, and we conclude that they support the conclusion that termination is in the children's best interest.

We affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate parental rights. Neither oral argument nor a published opinion is merited.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge