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

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

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of N.A. and D.A.,
persons under eighteen years of age.

_____________________________

N.A.,

Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040873-CA
 

F I L E D
(January 21, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 26

 

-----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Sharon P. McCully

Attorneys: Tupakk A.G. Renteria, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Carol L.C. Verdoia, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem

-----

Before Judges Davis, Jackson, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

    This case is before the court on N.A.'s appeal of a final order terminating her parental rights. N.A. argues on appeal that she was not provided suitable reunification services; that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) did not provide appropriate guidance and financial resources in working through her service plan; and that N.A. complied with the service plan. Accordingly, she insists her children should not have been removed during the trial home placement.

    These arguments are challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings of fact. Such challenges are reviewed by this court under a clearly erroneous standard. See In re E.R., 2001 UT App 66,¶11, 21 P.3d 680. "In addition, we have held that the juvenile court in particular is given a 'wide latitude of discretion as to the judgment arrived at' based upon not only the court's opportunity to judge credibility first hand, but also based on the juvenile court judges' 'special training, experience and interest in this field, and . . . devoted . . . attention to such matters . . . .'" Id. (quoting In re D.G., 376 P.2d 948, 951 (Utah 1962)).

    The trial court's termination order was based on several statutory grounds. N.A. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings upon which the court's legal conclusions are based. We have reviewed the record and the evidence amply supports the findings. Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge