Allegra G. v. Dcs
1 CA-JV 21-0260
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Apr 7, 2022Background
- In March 2021 DCS removed five minor children after a sibling’s death and reports the children had no medical/dental care, were unenrolled in school, and were isolated from family.
- DCS filed a dependency petition; at a June 22, 2021 adjudication hearing (which Mother did not attend) the juvenile court found the children dependent as to Mother.
- The court scheduled disposition within 30 days; the disposition hearing occurred on July 30, 2021 — eight days after the 30-day deadline.
- Hours before the disposition hearing Mother filed a written “Notice” arguing the hearing violated A.R.S. § 8-844(E), but she did not appear at the hearing.
- At disposition the court adopted a case plan of severance and adoption and ordered an expedited home-study for a proposed out-of-state relative placement; Mother appealed the disposition order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a disposition hearing held more than 30 days after adjudication is void | Mother: The hearing violated § 8-844(E) and Rule 56(B); the tardy hearing rendered the disposition void | DCS: The statutory/rule deadline is directory, not jurisdictional; statute provides no consequence for delay and children could be harmed if hearings were voided | Court: Deadline is directory (following Joshua J.); Mother must show prejudice and did not, so no relief |
| Whether § 8-845 is unconstitutional as applied / whether Mother was denied due process | Mother: § 8-845 is overly broad and did not prioritize her parental rights; she was deprived of constitutional rights at disposition | DCS: § 8-845 requires consideration of best interests and reunification efforts; Mother had notice and chance to be heard but did not appear and did not fully avail herself of process | Court: Statute constitutional as applied; Mother received due process but waived full participation by not attending; no error |
| Whether missing portions of the hearing record or failure to reconstruct the record invalidates disposition | Mother: First seven minutes of hearing not recorded; record defect requires relief | DCS: Mother could seek reconstruction under ARCAP 11 but did not; she does not challenge underlying evidence showing neglect | Court: Mother did not reconstruct record or show prejudice; no relief |
| Whether Mother waived appellate arguments by failing to follow briefing rules | DCS: Mother failed to provide required record and legal citations, thus waived issues | Mother: (argues merits) | Court: Exercised discretion to reach merits on disposition challenges but declined to address adjudication-related claims; briefing defects noted but did not bar review of disposition issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Joshua J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 417 (App. 2012) (deadlines in dependency rules may be directory; relief requires showing of prejudice)
- Alexander M. v. Abrams, 235 Ariz. 104 (2014) (courts must consider child’s best interests in every decision)
- Lindsey M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 212 Ariz. 43 (App. 2006) (jurisdictional and appellate foundation for dependency appeals)
- Cruz v. Garcia, 240 Ariz. 233 (App. 2016) (parents are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time)
- Jessicah C. v. Dept’ of Child Safety, 248 Ariz. 203 (App. 2020) (a parent may waive the right to present evidence by agreement or by failing to participate)