K.T. v. S.T. (In re Interest of A.B.)

523 P.3d 168

In the INTEREST OF A.B., a Person Under Eighteen Years of Age

K.T., Respondent,

v.S.T., T.T., and the Office of the Guardian ad Litem, Petitioners.

No. 20210776

Supreme Court of Utah.

Heard May 11, 2022

Filed November 25, 2022

Steve S. Christensen, Clinton R. Brimhall, Salt Lake City, for respondent

Sheleigh A. Harding, Salt Lake City, for petitioners S.T. and T.T.

Martha M. Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian ad Litem for petitioner A.B.

Chief Justice Durrant authored the opinion of the Court in which Associate Chief Justice Pearce, Justice Petersen, Judge Brown, and Judge Bates joined.

On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals

Chief Justice Durrant, opinion of the Court:

Introduction

¶1 K.T. (Mother) left her daughter, A.B., in the care of S.T. (Aunt) and T.T. (Uncle) for nearly a year—from the beginning of summer through the following school year. When Mother came to take A.B. back, Aunt and Uncle, rather than returning A.B. to Mother's care, sought custody and a protective order, claiming Mother had abused and neglected A.B.

¶2 The juvenile court determined that Mother had neglected A.B. and awarded custody to Aunt and Uncle. The court based its neglect determination on Mother's "emotional maltreatment" of A.B., her pattern of leaving A.B. with relatives, her inability to care for A.B. due to illness, and her failure to help Aunt and Uncle with A.B.'s expenses.

¶3 Mother appealed this decision, and the court of appeals reversed, holding that the juvenile court's findings and legal conclusions "d[id] not meet the statutory definition of ‘neglect’ " as found in Utah Code section 80-1-102(58)(a).¹ The court reviewed the juvenile court's decision nondeferentially because it determined that the question on review was a law-like mixed question of fact and law.² The court of appeals also declined Aunt, Uncle, and the Guardian ad Litem's (collectively, Petitioners) invitation to affirm the juvenile court's decision on the alternative ground of abuse.³ Petitioners sought review of the court of appeals' decision.

¶4 We granted certiorari to address three issues: whether the court of appeals erred by (1) analyzing the juvenile court's application of the neglect statute as a law-like mixed question and applying a nondeferential standard of review; (2) reversing the lower court's neglect determination; and (3) not affirming on the alternative ground of abuse. Petitioners have failed to persuade us that the court of appeals erred on any of these three issues, so we affirm.

Background

¶5 Since A.B.'s birth in 2008, Mother, a single parent, has relied on relatives to help care for A.B., often leaving A.B. in the care of relatives for extended periods of time. Continuing this pattern, in May 2018, Mother left A.B. with Aunt and Uncle for the summer and the following school year. Mother then relocated to North Carolina.

¶6 In May 2019, Mother tried to take A.B. back to join her in North Carolina. Rather than returning A.B. to Mother's care, Aunt and Uncle sought custody and a protective order regarding A.B., alleging a history of neglect and abuse by Mother. Mother denied these allegations, and the issue went to trial.

¶7 At trial, testimony revealed difficulties in Mother and A.B.'s relationship. Mother's parenting style generally lacked affection and care, with Mother often acting gruff and impatient. Relatives observed no hugging and very little affection from Mother toward A.B. Mother also used profanity, such as when she asked A.B. why she was "acting like a bitch," and she called A.B. names such as "jackass" and "stupid." Mother and A.B. had a history of fighting, and Mother admitted throwing things in A.B.'s presence when angry.

¶8 After a cruise in 2017, Mother developed Mal de Debarquement Syndrome (MdDS),⁴ which causes anger, headaches, pain, stress, anxiety, and nausea. She also has an autoimmune disorder and suffers from depression. These medical conditions prevent her from working, and she cannot afford treatment. She relies on her boyfriend for financial support.

¶9 While A.B. was staying with Aunt and Uncle, Mother did not provide financial support for A.B.'s care. Mother also declined extra opportunities to visit with A.B. and to be involved in A.B.'s care, including taking phone calls and attending an eye doctor appointment. Uncle testified that Mother always put her interests above A.B.'s and tried to unload raising A.B. onto relatives.

¶10 In 2018, while living with Mother, A.B. stated she "want[ed] to die," which the court viewed as evidence of suicidal ideation. Mother argued that this statement was blown out of proportion and was not abnormal for a child of A.B.'s age. Mother stated that, at times, A.B. had demonstrated "rage and hatred" toward her.

¶11 A concerning incident also took place not long before the trial. During an unsupervised visit, Mother directed A.B. to tell her Guardian ad Litem that she needed to go home to her mother. And Mother said that if A.B. did not come home, "a lot of people will get hurt." Uncle overheard this conversation through A.B.'s smartwatch and immediately terminated the visit. The juvenile court found this conversation to be "emotionally abusive." Mother also testified she would cut off contact between A.B. and Aunt and Uncle if she received custody, a claim the court thought demonstrated "a complete disregard for the best interests of [A.B.]" given the positive bond she has with Aunt and Uncle.

¶12 Based on these facts, the juvenile court determined that A.B. had been neglected by Mother and awarded custody to Aunt and Uncle. In categorizing the situation as "neglect," the juvenile court made four legal conclusions:

(1) [A.B.] has been neglected by her mother in the form of emotional maltreatment, which has caused [A.B.] to be insecure, afraid and emotionally disturbed.

(2) [A.B.] has been neglected by her mother by being placed with relatives for extended and regular periods of time without support from her mother.

(3) The mother's physical and emotional problems prevent her from being able to parent [A.B.] properly.

(4) The mother has neglected [A.B.] in not assisting in paying for her support or providing items for [A.B.'s] care. The mother does not have gainful employment currently. This lack of stability prevents her from parenting [A.B.] properly.

¶13 Mother appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the juvenile court's decision.⁵ Because Mother did not dispute the relevant facts as found by the juvenile court, and because the question on appeal was whether the facts met the legal standard of neglect, the court of appeals reviewed the juvenile court's decision as a "law-like" mixed question under a de novo standard of review, giving no deference to the juvenile court.⁶

¶14 After determining the standard of review, the court of appeals reversed the juvenile court's neglect determination, holding that the juvenile court "failed to properly link its findings of fact and conclusions of law to the statute defining ‘neglect’ in these situations."⁷ Looking to the juvenile court's first conclusion of law—that "[A.B.] ha[s] been neglected by [Mother] in the form of emotional maltreatment"—the court noted that Aunt and Uncle had conceded that "emotional maltreatment ... is not neglect."⁸ And it stated that the concession was in line with court of appeals' caselaw holding that "the statutory definition of neglect cannot be construed to include emotional maltreatment."⁹ The court similarly held that the other conclusions of law made by the juvenile court "d[id] not clearly fall within the statute's language."¹⁰

¶15 Because the language of the juvenile court's legal conclusions did not match with Utah Code section 80-1-102(58)(a)'s definition of neglect, the court of appeals proceeded to examine the juvenile court's factual findings to see if any of the six statutory grounds defining neglect were satisfied.¹¹ Based mainly on the first three grounds, the court determined that Mother did not neglect A.B.¹² The court concluded that the first ground listed in the statute, which addresses abandonment, was not satisfied because "[t]he juvenile court did not analyze whether a parent who leaves a child temporarily with relatives could be considered to have abandoned the child."¹³ It also held that the second definition of neglect, referring to "lack of proper parental care," did not apply because "the record ... suggests that [A.B.] received proper parental care, even if not always at Mother's hand."¹⁴ Finally, it noted that the third ground for neglect, failure or refusal of a parent to provide proper or necessary care, failed because while "Mother did refuse to pay Aunt and Uncle for ... [A.B.'s] care," "the statute's plain language ... says nothing about a parent's refusal to reimburse another caretaker for providing the care."¹⁵

¶16 The court of appeals also considered Petitioners' argument that it should affirm on the alternative ground that A.B. had been abused.¹⁶ The court declined to affirm on this basis, noting that the juvenile court had used the term "emotional maltreatment" in its legal conclusions instead of the term of art "abuse," and that "the juvenile court made no substantive findings regarding emotional abuse."¹⁷ Concluding that the juvenile court had erred in its neglect determination and declining to rule on the alternative ground of abuse, the court of appeals reversed.¹⁸

¶17 Petitioners now seek review of the court of appeals' decision. We address three issues: whether the court of appeals erred by (1) analyzing the juvenile court's application of the neglect statute as a law-like mixed question and applying a nondeferential standard of review; (2) reversing the lower court's neglect determination; and (3) not affirming on the alternative ground of abuse. We have appellate jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(a).

Standard of Review

¶18 "On certiorari, we review the decision of the court of appeals and not that of the district court."¹⁹ We typically...