Background
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the termination of a biological father’s parental rights so that the children’s stepfather could adopt them. The decision applies the court’s companion ruling in Ross v. Kracht, which requires a “strictly necessary” analysis when parental rights are terminated under the Utah Adoption Act. Strict necessity means the court must examine whether a feasible alternative short of termination could equally protect and promote each child’s best interest.
The father had been incarcerated in Alaska since 2013 after pleading guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor and remained imprisoned until March 2023. After the children moved to Utah with their mother, his contact declined from phone calls to a few cards, gifts, and isolated calls. He had not seen the children since 2013 and had never met the youngest. Meanwhile, the mother married the proposed adoptive stepfather, who had helped raise the children since 2015.
Three children had special needs requiring substantial structure, routine, and attention. The evidence described learning disabilities, autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and behavioral challenges that had improved through consistent care. The district court found abandonment, neglect, parental unfitness, and token efforts. It also found termination strictly necessary because the children needed permanence and because leaving the father’s residual rights intact could expose them to disruptive future litigation. The father proposed preserving the status quo with possible reunification therapy or using a permanent guardianship.
The Court’s Holding
Chief Justice Durrant’s majority opinion held that the district court used the correct legal framework and that its best-interest findings were not against the clear weight of the evidence. The supreme court emphasized that the inquiry must be individualized and fact intensive. Here, the children’s particular susceptibility to instability, the father’s decade-long absence, and the evidence about their responses to disruption supported the forecast that reentry would harm their progress and relationship with the stepfather.
The court rejected the proposed alternatives. Continuing the status quo was not neutral because it contemplated introducing a parent who had been almost entirely absent, and reunification therapy did not eliminate the likely disruption. A guardianship also would not provide the same permanence because the father would retain residual rights and potential future litigation could follow if circumstances changed. The record did not suggest adoption would sever ties with the father’s sister or stepmother; the mother had voluntarily maintained those relationships and testified that preserving the children’s biological-family connections was important.
Associate Chief Justice Pohlman concurred in the judgment but repeated her view from Ross that the court did not need to decide categorically whether the Adoption Act incorporates strict necessity. She would have assumed the requirement applied and affirmed on the evidentiary record.
Key Takeaways
- Utah Adoption Act terminations require an individualized strictly necessary analysis under the controlling Ross framework.
- Courts may consider likely future instability from reintroducing a long-absent parent, particularly for children with special needs.
- Guardianship or the status quo is not equally protective when it cannot deliver comparable permanence and stability.
Why It Matters
Utah adoption and parental-rights counsel now have a concrete application of strict necessity in a private step-parent adoption. Petitioners must do more than show statutory grounds and a general best interest. They should develop evidence addressing the child’s circumstances and explain why proposed alternatives cannot supply equal protection and benefit.
For parents resisting termination, merely naming guardianship, continued custody, or reunification therapy will not suffice. The record should show how the alternative would work, why it would be stable, and how it would avoid disruption. The opinion also demonstrates that continued contact with extended biological family can coexist with termination, but practitioners should establish that expectation with evidence rather than assumption.