In the Interest of S.F. and C.F. v. Utah

K.F. (defendant) was the father of two children, who were adjudicated neglected and were removed from the custody of K.F. and his wife, H.F. (Mother). After the initial removal, K.F. and Mother were provided with 12 months of reunification services. Mother did not successfully comply with the reunification efforts, but K.F. complied, and the court returned the children to K.F. The children were returned to K.F. without the court terminating its jurisdiction and with a service plan, which K.F. violated. At a subsequent hearing, the court removed the children again. About a month later, Utah filed a petition to terminate K.F.’s parental rights. K.F. moved for another 12 months of reunification services rather than termination of his parental rights. The court denied K.F.’s motion, citing K.F.’s year of reunification services, which did not alleviate certain concerns, such as K.F.’s volatile relationship with Mother, which he was apparently unwilling to give up. K.F.’s and Mother’s parental rights were subsequently terminated. Three months later, Mother died. K.F.’s rights were terminated on the basis of K.F.’s neglect, unfitness, violence, and so forth. K.F. appealed, citing numerous issues. For example, K.F. complained that a particular permanency review hearing was not held, that there was insufficient evidence for terminating his parental rights, and that termination was not in his children’s best interests. These issues were all ultimately without merit. The appellate court also considered K.F.’s claim that once the children were removed from his custody a second time, the child-welfare proceedings began anew, necessitating a new adjudicatory hearing, giving the court jurisdiction and entitling K.F. to 12 more months of reunification services, the lack of which was a denial of due process.