2015 UT App 66
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF T.H., T.H.,
AND T.H., PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE.
D.H.,
Respondent and Appellant,
v.
STATE OF UTAH,
Petitioner and Appellee.
Memorandum Decision
No. 20140265-CA
Filed March 19, 2015
Third District Juvenile Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable James R. Michie Jr.
No. 1086063, 1086064, 1086066
Richard K. Clark, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and John M. Peterson,
Attorneys for Appellee
Martha Pierce, Guardian ad Litem
JUDGE STEPHEN L. ROTH authored this Memorandum Decision, in
which JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN and JOHN A. PEARCE
concurred.
ROTH, Judge:
¶1 D.H. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating reunification services and awarding custody of his
three minor children to their mother (Mother). Father challenges
the sufficiency of the evidence to support that decision. We
In re T.H.
conclude that the juvenile court’s findings are supported by the
record, and we therefore affirm.
¶2 “[I]n order to overturn the juvenile court’s decision *on
custody,] [t]he result must be against the clear weight of the
evidence or leave the appellate court with a firm and definite
conviction that a mistake has been made.” See In re B.R., 2007 UT
82, ¶ 12, 171 P.3d 435 (third alteration in original) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). In considering whether this
standard has been satisfied, we “review the juvenile court’s
factual findings based upon the clearly erroneous standard.” In
re E.R., 2001 UT App 66, ¶ 11, 21 P.3d 680. We “may not engage
in a reweighing of the evidence” but instead must only assess
whether there is evidence that supports the juvenile court’s
findings and conclusions. In re B.R., 2007 UT 82, ¶ 12.
¶3 This case originated in April 2013 from allegations of
environmental neglect in the parents’ home. Based on Mother’s
and Father’s admissions,1 the juvenile court adjudicated the
children neglected. Accordingly, the court entered an order for
“[p]rotected supervision,” which is “a legal status created by
court order following an adjudication on the ground of . . .
neglect . . . , whereby the minor[s are] permitted to remain in the
. . . home, and supervision and assistance to correct the . . .
neglect . . . is provided” by the Division of Child and Family
Services (DCFS). See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-105(33)
(LexisNexis Supp. 2014).2 At a subsequent disposition hearing,
1. Mother and Father admitted some of the allegations outright,
and other allegations were deemed true pursuant to rule 34(e) of
the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure, which treats “*a+llegations
not specifically denied by a respondent *to+ be deemed true,”
Utah R. Juv. P. 34(e).
2. Several provisions of the Juvenile Court Act, including this
one, were amended in 2014. See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-
(continued...)
20140265-CA 2 2015 UT App 66
In re T.H.
the juvenile court set a goal of keeping the children in the
custody of both parents, provided that the parents could acquire
and implement the skills necessary to keep the children safe in
the home.3 DCFS created a child and family plan with specific
services and responsibilities for each parent (the Service Plan).
¶4 Both parents initially made efforts to comply with the
Service Plan, but on September 11, 2013, Mother obtained a
protective order against Father that required him to move out of
the home. The protective order did not specifically preclude
Father’s contact with the children but instead awarded
temporary custody to Mother and “*d+efer*red+ to Juvenile
Court” on parent-time. The juvenile court subsequently
prohibited Father from exercising parent-time with the oldest
child until a therapist authorized visitation to resume. It allowed
Father to have parent-time with the younger two children but
mandated that all visits be supervised by DCFS or another court-
approved agency.
¶5 By late September 2013, police had arrested Father for
violation of the protective order. Father was in and out of
custody for protective order violations until at least January
2014. During his incarceration, Father could not participate in
the services offered through the Service Plan. Once he was
released from custody in January 2014, he participated in regular
(