K.D. v. State (In re A.M. and K.M.) , 2012 UT App 92 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                          IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    ‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐
    State of Utah, in the interest of           )           PER CURIAM DECISION
    A.M. and K.A.M., persons under              )
    eighteen years of age.                      )            Case No. 20110963‐CA
    ____________________________________        )
    )                   FILED
    K.D.,                                       )                (March 29, 2012)
    )
    Appellant,                          )              
    2012 UT App 92
    )
    v.                                          )
    )
    State of Utah,                              )
    )
    Appellee.                           )
    ‐‐‐‐‐
    Fourth District Juvenile, Provo Department, 1034509
    The Honorable Suchada P. Bazzelle
    Attorneys:       Grant Dickinson, Provo, for Appellant
    Mark L. Shurtleff, Carol L.C. Verdoia, and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake
    City, for Appellee
    Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem
    ‐‐‐‐‐
    Before Judges McHugh, Davis, and Christiansen.
    ¶1     K.D. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to
    his children, A.M. and K.A.M. Father argues that the district court erred in failing to
    require the State to provide him with certain information regarding the mother of the
    children during her reunification services. Father asserts that the failure to provide him
    with such information resulted in a denial of his due process rights.
    ¶2      Utah Code section 78A‐6‐317(5)(a) sets forth that “notwithstanding any other
    provision of law . . . counsel for all parties to the action shall be given access to all
    records, maintained by the division or any other state or local public agency that are
    relevant to the abuse, neglect, or dependency proceeding.” Utah Code Ann. § 78A‐6‐
    317(5)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2011). Father argues that under this provision the Division
    of Child and Family Services (DCFS) was required to provide him with all information
    in its possession concerning the mother’s reunification efforts, including all references
    to the mother’s mental health and drug treatment records. He further argues that
    DCFS’s failure to provide him with such information prejudiced him because if he had
    been provided with such information he would have taken more substantial efforts to
    obtain custody of the children. As a result, Father asserts that the district court erred in
    denying his eve‐of‐trial motion to compel the production of the records and to continue
    the trial.
    ¶3     Even if this court were to assume for the sake of argument that DCFS could
    produce the requested documents without violating federal or state law concerning the
    protection of the mother’s confidentiality, the records were not relevant to the petition
    to terminate Father’s parental rights.1 The petition was based upon Father’s conduct
    regarding both the circumstances that led to the children being adjudicated as abused
    and neglected and the lack of progress he made to remedy those circumstances. The
    mother’s mental health records are not relevant to that determination. Father argues
    that the records were relevant because, had he known that the mother was at risk for
    not regaining custody of the children, he might have worked harder to comply with the
    suggestions set forth for him in the service plan. Father’s argument is misplaced for
    two reasons.
    ¶4     First, it is axiomatic that once a child is placed into DCFS’s custody due to the
    abuse or neglect of the child’s parents, it is incumbent upon each parent, individually,
    to take those steps necessary to cure the problems that led to the loss of his or her
    custody. One parent’s success or failure does not necessarily affect the success or
    failure of the other parent. Cf. In re A.K., 
    2008 UT App 423
    , ¶ 4, 
    198 P.3d 1001
    (mem)(per curiam) (holding that court of appeals had jurisdiction to review an order
    1
    Federal law prohibits the wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable
    physical and mental health information, subject to some exceptions. See 42 U.S.C. §
    1320d‐6.
    20110963‐CA                                  2
    terminating the mother’s parental rights even though the petition to terminate the
    father’s parental rights had not yet been adjudicated). As such, it is entirely possible
    that one parent may successfully regain custody of the child, while the other parent’s
    rights to that child are terminated, especially when the parents are not married and
    there is a history of domestic abuse. Accordingly, Father knew or should have known
    from the date the children were removed that he was at risk of losing his parental rights
    regardless of the mother’s independent efforts in seeking reunification.
    ¶5     Second, the timing of Father’s request for the records made them even less
    relevant to the proceedings. Father’s argument for access to the records is premised on
    his position that if he been given access to records allegedly showing that the mother’s
    mental health would have made it difficult for her to regain custody of the children, he
    would have taken more steps to regain custody of the children himself. However, by
    the time Father requested the documents, a few scant weeks before trial, the mother had
    died, thereby putting Father on notice that he must make independent efforts to gain
    custody of his children. Consequently, by the time Father sought the records, they were
    irrelevant to his decision to make the efforts necessary to become an adequate parent.
    ¶6     Because we agree with the juvenile court that the mental heath records of the
    children’s deceased mother were irrelevant to Father’s fitness as a parent, we conclude
    that neither the statute nor Father’s due process rights were violated. The juvenile
    court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights is affirmed.
    ____________________________________
    Carolyn B. McHugh,
    Presiding Judge
    ____________________________________
    James Z. Davis, Judge
    ____________________________________
    Michele M. Christiansen, Judge
    20110963‐CA                                 3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20110963-CA

Citation Numbers: 2012 UT App 92

Filed Date: 3/29/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2021