Deference to Juvenile Courts in Termination Cases: Applying the Strictly Necessary Standard in In re D.S.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Utah’s decision in In re D.S., 2025 UT 11, clarifies how appellate courts must defer to juvenile courts’ determinations of a child’s best interest in termination proceedings. In this case, the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) moved to terminate the parental rights of S.S. (Father) to his two children, K.S. (age 14) and D.S. (age 8), so their grandmother could adopt them. After the juvenile court granted termination on the ground that adoption was strictly necessary to promote the children’s best interests, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed. The Office of the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) then sought certiorari. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the termination order, emphasizing that an appellate court may overturn a juvenile court’s best interest finding only when it is against the clear weight of the evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

The juvenile court had found:

Father was incarcerated and unable to provide care.
The children had lived under unstable and harmful conditions while with their parents.
In Grandmother’s custody the children had achieved stability and expressed a desire to be adopted.
Visits with Father caused anxiety and avoidance behavior in the children and he did not fully appreciate that harm.
Adoption by Grandmother would allow decisions about contact with Father to be guided solely by the children’s needs rather than Father’s residual rights.

On appeal, the court of appeals viewed the record differently and reversed, concluding that permanent guardianship would equally promote the children’s interests and Father had shown commendable efforts to maintain a relationship. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that the appellate court had failed to apply the proper standard of review, and reinstated the termination order.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re B.T.B. (2020 UT 60): Established that once statutory grounds for termination are found, the focus shifts entirely to the child’s best interest, and termination is permissible only when “strictly necessary” to promote that interest.
In re J.M. (2020 UT App 52): Emphasized that the best‐interest inquiry weighs all circumstances to determine what outcome serves the child.
In re E.R. (2021 UT 36): Defined the appellate standard of review, holding that a best‐interest decision may be disturbed only if it is against the clear weight of the evidence or leaves an appellate court with a firm conviction of error.
In re J.A.L. (2022 UT 12): Cautioned against reliance on categorical benefits of adoption—such as permanency alone—without case‐specific analysis.
In re A.H. (2024 UT 26): Reaffirmed that categorical differences between adoption and guardianship can inform—but not dictate—a best‐interest determination, and reiterated the high deference owed to juvenile courts on matters of child welfare.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Petersen, proceeded in three steps:

Statutory Framework: Under Utah Code § 80-4-301, a petition to terminate parental rights requires two showings: (1) statutory grounds for termination (e.g., unfitness), and (2) that termination “is strictly necessary to promote the child’s best interest.” Section 80-4-104(12)(b) directs the court to weigh the totality of circumstances “from the child's point of view."
Standard of Review: An appellate court may overturn a juvenile court’s best‐interest finding only if it is against the clear weight of the evidence—that is, if the record compels a different conclusion or the juvenile court overlooked critical facts. Mere disagreement is insufficient.
Application of the Record: Reviewing the trial record, the Supreme Court found substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s findings that:

Father’s incarceration and past instability made his future care uncertain.
The children were anxious and avoidant during visits—even video calls—suggesting emotional harm.
Father did not appreciate the children’s distress, calling into question his ability to act in their best interest.
Adoption would empower Grandmother—an experienced caregiver dedicated to the children—to seek therapeutic guidance on contact decisions, ensuring the children’s needs and wishes govern visitation.
Permanent guardianship would leave the children subject to Father’s residual rights, potentially forcing unwanted contact.

The court held that termination was strictly necessary because no non-terminating option equally protected the children’s interests in safety, stability, and agency.

Impact

This decision has three principal impacts on Utah family law:

Appellate Deference Reinforced: Courts of appeals must refrain from substituting their judgment for that of juvenile courts on best‐interest questions unless a clear‐weight‐of‐evidence standard is met.
Child’s Perspective Focus: Best‐interest analyses must remain centered on the child’s needs, wishes, and welfare rather than parental rights or policy presumptions favoring reunification.
Adoption vs. Guardianship: Termination should be deemed strictly necessary only when adoption uniquely advances the child’s interests—particularly through granting decision‐making authority over future contact—beyond any viable guardianship arrangement.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Statutory Grounds for Termination: Predetermined legal reasons (e.g., abuse, neglect, parental unfitness) that authorize courts to consider ending parental rights.
Strictly Necessary Requirement: Even if a parent is unfit, the court must ask whether ending parental rights is the only way to serve the child’s best interest. If another plan (e.g., guardianship) would work as well, termination is not allowed.
Best Interest of the Child: A holistic, circumstance‐by‐circumstance analysis from the child’s viewpoint, balancing stability, emotional well‐being, relationships, and the child’s own wishes.
Residual Parental Rights: Rights that survive in a guardianship, such as the right to reasonable visitation (“parent‐time”), which can sometimes conflict with what the child wants.
Clear Weight of the Evidence: A high threshold for appellate reversal, meaning the record must overwhelmingly support a different outcome than the one reached below.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Utah’s decision in In re D.S. cements the principle that juvenile courts’ determinations of a child’s best interest in termination cases deserve substantial deference on appeal. The ruling underscores that termination of parental rights may proceed only when no less drastic alternative—such as guardianship—can equally protect the child. By reaffirming the “strictly necessary” standard and clarifying the proper application of the clear‐weight‐of‐evidence review, In re D.S. provides critical guidance for courts, practitioners, and families navigating the delicate balance between parental rights and a child’s welfare.