Appeals court hears dispute over parental termination vs. permanent guardianship and whether juvenile court misapplied "strictly necessary" test

A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals heard argument on an appeal challenging a juvenile court order that terminated a parent's rights and favored adoption over permanent guardianship, focusing on whether the trial court misapplied the statutory standard that termination be “strictly necessary to promote the best interest” of the child.

The panel, chaired by Judge Ryan Tenney and joined by Judges Michelle Christiansen Forrester and John Luthy, questioned counsel about whether the juvenile court had compartmentalized the “strictly necessary” inquiry instead of treating it together with the broader best‑interest analysis. Judge Tenney prefaced argument by reminding counsel of logistical rules: “We allot 15 minutes per side per argument. There's a clock at the podium.”

The attorney identified in the transcript as “Hitachi,” who stated he represented the minor child, told the court the juvenile judge had made detailed findings that “termination was in the best interest of the child” and that the problem on appeal was the juvenile court’s legal framing. “The court went through all of the statutory factors,” counsel said, but he…