In re A.H.
In re A.H., 2024 UT 26 (Durrant, C.J.)
Child Welfare
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of two siblings, and the parents appealed. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the parental termination order. Reversing, the appellate court held that termination must be “materially better” than any other option for it to be “strictly necessary.” On certiorari, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding:
- The court of appeals exceeded the scope of appellate review and misapplied this court’s precedent in several ways. The juvenile court appropriately terminated parental rights.
- Practice tip: The language from Utah Code section 80-4-104—favoring “the care and supervision of the child’s natural parents”—is directed at the best interest analysis itself, not at the parental fitness determination.
- Practice tip: A best interest determination is made in the present tense and should not be unduly swayed by the propriety of past decisions.
- Practice tip: After the presumption of parental fitness is rebutted, a parent no longer enjoys that constitutional presumption.
- Judicial tip: An appellate court reviewing a termination decision should not perform its own independent reweighing of the evidence to decide how it would have resolved the matter in the first instance.
