Amanda G. v. Dcs, A.O.
1 CA-JV 16-0461
| Ariz. Ct. App. | May 4, 2017Background
- Mother previously had parental rights to another child (J.O.) terminated for prolonged drug use days before A.O. was born.
- DCS took newborn A.O. into protective custody at the hospital and filed a dependency petition; DCS later filed to terminate mother's parental rights to A.O.
- DCS alleged grounds: prior termination within two years and chronic substance abuse with failure to engage in reunification services.
- At the contested severance hearing, DCS presented evidence that A.O. was healthy, adoptable, and placed with a relative caring for J.O.; mother had not completed required drug testing, counseling, or demonstrated housing/employment stability.
- The juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) and (B)(10), finding severance served A.O.’s best interest by providing permanency and stability.
- Mother appealed only the best-interest determination; she did not contest the statutory grounds for termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severance was in child’s best interest | Mother: Court focused on likelihood of adoption and did not assess potential harm if reunification was given more time | DCS: Termination would provide permanency, stability; child is adoptable and current placement meets needs | Court affirmed: Juvenile court reasonably found severance in child’s best interest based on available evidence |
| Whether trial court’s factual finding that child was in adoptive placement was fatal error | Mother: Court misstated that A.O. was already in adoptive home (she was in non-adoptive foster placement) | DCS: Misstatement did not undermine totality of evidence showing adoptability and placement stability | Held: Misstatement not reversible; record otherwise supports best-interest finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (App. 2002) (trial court best positioned to resolve credibility and factual disputes in juvenile cases)
- Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (best-interest finding must show how child benefits from severance or is harmed if parental relationship continues)
- Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373 (App. 2010) (factors for best-interest: availability of adoptive placement, whether current placement meets child’s needs, and adoptability)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 547 (App. 2010) (appellate review accepts juvenile court’s factual findings if reasonable evidence supports them)
- Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1 (App. 2016) (court need only find either benefit from severance or harm from continuation of parent–child relationship)