Facts: In In re K.M., the case concerns a long-standing guardianship dispute over K.M., a minor. K.M.’s maternal grandmother initially petitioned for a protective order seeking custody in 2016, citing concerns over the child’s mother’s mental health. In 2017, K.M.’s maternal aunt (Aunt) petitioned for and was granted temporary guardianship. K.M. has remained in her custody since then. Parents later entered into a stipulated agreement allowing Aunt temporary custody, setting criteria for reunification, including resolving criminal charges, undergoing mental health treatment, and maintaining stable housing and employment. Over the years, Father attempted to regain custody and presented evidence of compliance with the stipulated conditions. Despite this, the juvenile court awarded permanent guardianship to Aunt in 2023, citing concerns over Mother’s mental health, housing stability, and the child’s welfare. Father and Mother appealed the decision.
Issue: Did the juvenile court apply the correct standard when determining whether K.M. could be safely returned to his parents, and did the court err in concluding that permanent guardianship should be awarded to Aunt?
Rule: Under Utah law (Utah Code § 80-3-409), when reunification services are provided, the court must determine whether the child can be safely returned to the parents. Additionally, in a guardianship case, the burden is on the petitioner to prove that the parents are unfit or that the child cannot be safely reunified with them. The court also evaluates whether parents have substantially complied with court-ordered stipulations as a basis for reunification.
Application: The Utah Court of Appeals found that the juvenile court failed to apply the proper standard in determining whether K.M. could be safely returned to his parents. The lower court’s decision relied on concerns such as housing stability, Mother’s mental health, and minor instances of non-compliance with stipulated conditions, rather than focusing on whether K.M. would face substantial harm if returned home. The appellate court found that:
- Parents had largely complied with the conditions for reunification, including addressing past criminal activity and completing treatment programs.
- While the court expressed concerns over Mother’s mental health and missing therapy sessions, the evidence did not establish that she posed a direct safety risk to K.M.
- The court improperly speculated on housing stability and financial adequacy rather than evaluating present conditions.
- The juvenile court ignored alternative solutions, such as implementing support services rather than permanently transferring custody.
- The clear weight of evidence showed that Father, at minimum, had met the reunification criteria, making permanent guardianship with Aunt unwarranted.
Conclusion: The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s decision, ruling that the order granting Aunt permanent guardianship was based on an incorrect legal standard. The appellate court held that K.M. could be safely returned to his Father’s custody and that Father had substantially complied with the stipulated reunification conditions. Consequently, the petition for permanent guardianship was denied, and the temporary guardianship was ordered to be dissolved.