448 P.3d 967
Ariz. Ct. App.2019Background
- Dependency petition filed (Nov 2016) for child Anya; parents Brionna J. (Mother) and Christopher V. (Father) were living apart and had an ongoing custody dispute.
- In Mar 2017 the juvenile court adjudicated Anya dependent and placed her in out-of-home care with family reunification case plans for both parents.
- In Jan 2019 both parents filed Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court (Rule) 59 motions seeking return of Anya to their custody; the court heard both motions together.
- The juvenile court found Father closer to reunification, granted Father’s Rule 59 motion, and denied Mother’s Rule 59 motion; minute entry reflecting those orders was signed and Mother appealed.
- While the appeal was pending, DCS removed Anya from Father’s home after safety concerns and the juvenile court placed Anya back in DCS custody and foster care; Mother did not object to that later placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order denying a parent’s Rule 59 motion is a final, appealable order | Mother: denial is appealable; court could have granted both parents’ motions and resolved custodial arrangements | DCS/Father/guardian: denial is interlocutory and does not alter dependency status or parental rights | Court: Denial of a Rule 59 motion is interlocutory, not a final appealable order; appellate jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether special-action jurisdiction should be exercised despite lack of appellate jurisdiction | Mother: needed prompt review; appeal inadequate remedy | State: not directly argued, but court must consider appropriateness | Court: Accepts special-action jurisdiction given child-placement urgency but declines relief as case is moot |
| Whether Mother’s challenge to the original Rule 59 denial remains live after child was returned to DCS and placed in foster care | Mother: prior denial was erroneous and harmed her reunification prospects | DCS/Father/guardian: subsequent change in placement renders prior order moot because juvenile court made new findings based on current facts | Court: Mother’s claim rendered moot by subsequent juvenile-court order placing Anya in DCS custody and finding foster care consistent with best interests |
| Whether appellate stay would impede juvenile court’s ability to make new placement orders during appeal | Mother: (implied) appeal should not block juvenile court’s discretion | DCS: permitting appeal would unduly constrain juvenile court and impede expeditious permanency decisions | Court: Allowing appeals from Rule 59 denials would freeze juvenile-court proceedings and frustrate statute/Rule goals; thus appeals not allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Francisco F. v. ADES, 228 Ariz. 379 (App.) (jurisdiction of court of appeals is limited; distinguishes orders that modify reunification services)
- Yavapai County Juv. Action No. J-8545, 140 Ariz. 10 (1984) (expanded, pragmatic view of finality in juvenile cases given fundamental parental rights)
- Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JD-5312, 178 Ariz. 372 (App.) (assess practical effect of juvenile orders when determining finality)
- Rita J. v. ADES, 196 Ariz. 512 (App.) (Rule 59’s purpose is expeditious permanent placement; special-action review may be appropriate)
- Gutierrez v. Fox, 242 Ariz. 259 (App.) (temporary parenting orders are preparatory and not appealable)
- In re MH 2008-000028, 221 Ariz. 277 (App.) (doctrine of mootness; a case is moot when it presents only abstract questions)