Amber S. v. Dcs, L.C.
1 CA-JV 17-0113
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- Mother (Amber S.) and Father are L.C.’s biological parents; L.C. was removed from parental custody when less than one week old and adjudicated dependent.
- DCS provided reunification services (parent aide, case aide, supervised visits, psychological evaluation, transportation, coordination with Partners in Recovery); Mother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and personality disorder.
- Throughout proceedings Mother repeatedly maintained contact with Father despite domestic violence incidents (multiple arrests and police reports) and at times lied about the contact to the court and DCS.
- After continued domestic-violence incidents and concerns about Mother’s deception and co-dependency, DCS changed the case plan to severance and adoption and petitioned to terminate Mother’s parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c).
- The superior court found DCS provided diligent reunification efforts, Mother failed to remedy the circumstances that caused removal (ongoing relationship with violent Father), and there was a substantial likelihood Mother would not be capable of proper parental care in the near future.
- The court also found severance was in L.C.’s best interests because L.C. had a stable, bonded foster/adoptive placement and had been in out-of-home care for nearly her entire life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS proved statutory grounds for severance under § 8-533(B)(8)(c) | Mother: she consistently engaged in mental-health services, obtained housing and an order of protection, and interacted appropriately with child, so she remedied circumstances | DCS: Mother continued deceptive contact with violent Father, failed to remedy domestic-violence risk, despite offered services | Held: Court affirmed—clear and convincing evidence supports severance (Mother failed to remedy circumstances; likelihood she cannot parent in near future) |
| Whether DCS provided diligent reunification services | Mother: DCS failed to provide continuous individual counseling during a 4–6 month lapse | DCS: Lapse was caused by provider turnover and SSI limitations; DCS coordinated with Partners in Recovery and made diligent efforts | Held: Court held DCS made diligent, reasonable efforts given SSI restrictions and provider capacity |
| Whether Mother will be capable of proper parental care in the near future | Mother: recent changes (therapy, housing, protective order) show she can parent soon | DCS: Mother’s pattern of returning to Father and dishonesty indicate substantial likelihood she will not be able to parent safely soon | Held: Court found substantial evidence Mother will not be capable of proper care in near future |
| Whether severance is in child’s best interests | Mother: she has changed and should be given a chance at reunification | DCS: child benefits from permanency; foster home is stable and adoptive | Held: Court found by preponderance severance is in child’s best interests (stable adoptive placement; need for permanency) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (Ariz. 2005) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute)
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (Ariz. 2000) (burden and standards for termination proceedings)
- Shella H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47 (App. 2016) (court must consider circumstances at time of termination hearing)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (appellate deference to trial court fact-finding in dependency cases)
- Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (standard of review for termination orders and evidence sufficiency)
- Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185 (App. 1999) (DCS must undertake measures with a reasonable prospect of success)
- Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 282 (App. 2011) (best-interests showing: child benefits from severance or is harmed by continuation)