## Facts

- K.F. was the father of two children, S.F. and C.F., involved in Utah juvenile-court child-welfare proceedings.
- The children were adjudicated neglected and removed from K.F. and the children’s mother, H.F. (Mother).
- After the initial removal, the parents were offered 12 months of reunification services.
- Mother did not successfully comply with services, but K.F. did, and the juvenile court returned the children to K.F.
- The juvenile court returned the children to K.F. without ending its jurisdiction and required K.F. to follow a service plan.
- K.F. violated the service plan, and at a later hearing the juvenile court removed the children from K.F. a second time.
- About a month after the second removal, the State of Utah filed a petition to terminate K.F.’s parental rights.
- K.F. requested an additional 12 months of reunification services instead of moving forward on termination; the juvenile court denied that request, relying on the prior year of services and unresolved concerns, including K.F.’s volatile relationship with Mother.
- The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents on statutory grounds that included neglect, unfitness, and violence-related concerns.
- Mother died roughly three months after the termination order.
- K.F. appealed, challenging multiple procedural and evidentiary rulings, including complaints about a permanency-review hearing, the sufficiency of the evidence, best interests, and a due-process claim that the second removal required a new adjudication and a new reunification-services period.

## Issues

1. Did the second removal of the children from K.F.’s custody restart the child-welfare case, requiring a new adjudicatory process and entitling K.F. to a new 12-month reunification-services period as a matter of due process?
2. Was there sufficient evidence to support statutory grounds for termination and the juvenile court’s determination that termination was in the children’s best interests?
3. Did alleged procedural errors (including the claimed absence of a particular permanency-review hearing) require reversal?

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s termination of K.F.’s parental rights.
- The court rejected K.F.’s argument that the second removal began a new proceeding requiring a new adjudication and a fresh 12-month reunification-services period.
- The court concluded that K.F. was not denied due process by the juvenile court’s decision to proceed to termination after K.F. had already received reunification services and the court had retained jurisdiction when it returned the children to him subject to a service plan.
- The court held that K.F.’s additional challenges—including asserted procedural defects, the evidentiary basis for termination, and the best-interests determination—did not show reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- When a juvenile court returns children to a parent while retaining jurisdiction and requiring compliance with a service plan, later events (including a second removal) may be treated as part of the same continuing case rather than a new proceeding.
- A second removal during a continuing dependency case does not automatically require a new adjudication or reset the timeline for reunification services.
- Due process in termination proceedings requires notice and an opportunity to be heard; it does not guarantee repeated, full reunification-service periods after a parent has already received services and ongoing safety concerns remain.
- Termination may be affirmed where the record supports statutory grounds such as neglect and unfitness and supports the finding that termination serves the children’s best interests.
- Appellate review in termination cases generally defers to the juvenile court’s supported factual findings and credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The Utah Court of Appeals upheld the termination of K.F.’s parental rights, concluding that the juvenile court retained continuing jurisdiction after reunification and that the children’s second removal did not restart the case or require a new adjudication and another full period of reunification services; the court also found no reversible procedural error and determined that the evidence supported both statutory grounds for termination and the children’s best interests.


In the Interest of S.F. and C.F. v. Utah, 268 P.3d 831 (2011)