## Facts

- N.T. and T.T. were the parents of four minor children.
- Utah’s Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS) became involved after a referral alleging abuse and neglect; at that time, the youngest child had not yet been born, and the other three children were two years old and under.
- An agency worker visited the home, found it in terrible condition, and observed that the children appeared malnourished and underweight.
- DCFS offered family-preservation services, which the parents largely declined, except that they frequently used a day-care facility (Kid’s Corral) and another center where they often left the children overnight.
- Staff at those facilities repeatedly observed the children arriving wet, dirty, and hungry; bottles sometimes contained sour milk and had nipples with dried, crusted formula.
- The children had severe diaper rashes and sores and often arrived ill with fevers, colds, and coughs; on several occasions they had cuts, burns, bruises, and black eyes.
- The children showed developmental delays, including one child who could speak only three words when peers could speak far more, and another who could not stand alone at 14 months.
- After additional referrals and medical diagnoses that the children were malnourished, anemic, and underweight, the parents admitted abuse.
- The children were placed outside the home with a reunification goal; in substitute care, the children gained weight and improved developmentally.
- Despite only minimal compliance with a treatment plan, the children were returned to the parents; conditions again deteriorated and DCFS filed another petition, leading to a second admission by the parents.
- DCFS again provided services (including homemaking help, parenting assistance, and counseling), but the same pattern of neglect and abuse reappeared.
- When the parents were evicted, they voluntarily placed the children in DCFS custody; the children were later returned, but two more referrals followed and DCFS filed a third neglect petition.
- The children were again placed with the same substitute-care family as before; reunification services continued until new indications of abuse arose from the children’s fearful behavior during unsupervised weekend visits.
- About six years after the initial referrals, DCFS petitioned to terminate parental rights; after trial, the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights to all four children, and the parents appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the juvenile court’s findings supporting termination were supported by clear and convincing evidence under Utah law.
2. Whether, given the parents’ history and the services offered, termination of parental rights (rather than continued reunification efforts) was in the children’s best interests.
3. Whether the appellate court should disturb the juvenile court’s factual findings and weighing of evidence regarding recurring neglect, harm to the children, and the parents’ inability to make lasting changes.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s order terminating N.T.’s and T.T.’s parental rights to their four children.
- The court concluded that the record supported the juvenile court’s determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents repeatedly neglected and abused the children and did not correct the underlying problems despite years of services and multiple opportunities.
- The court upheld the best-interests determination, emphasizing the children’s marked improvement when placed outside the parents’ care and the repeated return of harmful conditions when the children were returned to the parents.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.
- A sustained pattern of serious neglect or abuse, combined with a parent’s failure to remedy the conditions after reasonable services and time, can support termination.
- Evidence comparing the children’s health and development in out-of-home placement versus in the parents’ home may support findings on both unfitness and best interests.
- On appeal, the reviewing court gives substantial deference to the juvenile court’s factual findings and credibility determinations and will not reweigh competing evidence when the findings are supported by the record.

## Conclusion

In *In re S.T.*, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed termination because the evidence showed years of repeated neglect and abuse—documented by third-party observations, medical findings, and the children’s developmental delays—and because the parents did not make lasting changes despite extensive services and multiple reunification attempts. The court agreed that the children’s need for safety and stability, shown by their improvement in substitute care and decline when returned home, supported the juvenile court’s best-interests finding and termination order.


In re S.T., 928 P.2d 393 (1996)