Bennigno R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
233 Ariz. 345
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Bennigno R., biological father of S.R. (b.1999) and L.R. (b.2009), appealed termination of his parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) (mental illness) and § 8-533(B)(8)(c) (length of time in court-ordered care).
- The family had a long CPS history (reports of neglect, abuse, parental substance use, and sexual abuse within the extended family); children entered protective custody in 2005 and again in 2009, and were adjudicated dependent in 2010.
- ADES filed an initial severance motion in 2011; after a multi-day hearing the juvenile court found statutory grounds but declined to terminate S.R. and L.R. at that time based on parent–child bonds, ordering continued services and a permanency hearing.
- ADES filed a second severance motion in 2012; Bennigno moved for summary judgment, arguing res judicata barred re-litigation of best interests; the juvenile court denied the motion and later terminated parental rights, finding ADES had proven statutory grounds and that termination served the children’s best interests.
- Key evidence supporting termination included psychologist Al Silberman’s bonding and best-interest evaluations, testimony that the foster mother provided stable, specialized care and intended to adopt (and relocate to North Carolina), and findings that parents had not benefitted from provided services.
- The appellate court reviewed for reasonable evidence supporting the juvenile court’s findings and affirmed termination, rejecting Bennigno’s res judicata, services, abandonment, and best-interests challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Bennigno's Argument | ADES' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata barred re-litigation of best-interest on second severance motion | First severance decision was a final judgment on merits; ADES must show no new facts to re-litigate | New evidence (psychological evaluations, placement changes) and passage of time justified new hearing; res judicata limited in dependency cases | Court refused to apply res judicata; denial of summary judgment proper because circumstances and evidence had changed |
| Whether ADES made diligent, appropriate reunification efforts | Bennigno contends he complied with case plan, visited children, and was not given sufficient direction or services | ADES produced evidence of psychological evaluations, visitation, counseling, parenting classes, substance treatment, urinalysis; efforts were reasonable | Court found ADES made diligent, reasonable efforts and parents did not benefit; Bennigno waived/forfeited detailed challenge to services |
| Whether ADES was required to prove abandonment | Bennigno argued he had not abandoned the children | ADES' severance grounds were mental illness and time in care; abandonment was not alleged | Court held ADES was not required to prove abandonment because it was not a pleaded ground |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | Bennigno emphasized parent–child bond and adverse effect of relocation; argued placement’s desire to adopt motivated termination | ADES pointed to foster mother’s stable, long-term care, evaluations finding stronger bond to foster mother, children’s special needs, and need for permanency (adoption plan exists) | Court found by preponderance that termination served children’s best interests and there was no reasonable prospect of reunification; affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Lashonda M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 210 Ariz. 77 (appellate review standard in juvenile termination appeals)
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (deference to juvenile court factual findings)
- Corbett v. ManorCare of America, Inc., 213 Ariz. 618 (general statement of res judicata doctrine)
- John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 208 Ariz. 532 (generally denying review of summary judgment denials after full trial)
- Hourani v. Benson Hosp., 211 Ariz. 427 (when denial of summary judgment based on law, appellate review possible)
- Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (ADES’ obligation to make reasonable reunification efforts)
- Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (adoption plan as factor in best-interest analysis)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (burden standards: statutory grounds vs. best-interest proof)
- In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-8490, 179 Ariz. 102 (court may consider whether placement meets child’s needs)
- Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (forfeiture/waiver of challenges to services)