Brionna J. v. dcs/a.V.
255 Ariz. 471
Ariz.2023Background
- Mother (Brionna J.) had a long history (reports from 2006–2013 and thereafter) of alleged neglect/abuse, substance issues, arrests, and mental-health concerns; DCS filed a dependency petition for daughter A.V. (born 2005).
- A.V. was made dependent and placed out-of-home for over four years; DCS provided reunification services (anger management, DBT, bonding assessment, supervised visits, parent aide) but Mother’s participation was inconsistent and often hostile.
- Multiple psychological evaluations over time diagnosed or suspected a long‑term personality disorder (borderline, antisocial, paranoid traits), concluded Mother was not amenable to therapy, and found her parenting risk remained high.
- At the termination trial DCS’s witnesses testified Mother’s behavior and failure to change made return unsafe; A.V. lived in an adoptive placement and supported severance; Mother admitted past temper problems and poor cooperation but argued she could parent.
- Juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights under A.R.S. § 8‑533(B)(8)(c). The court of appeals vacated the termination (concluding the evidence did not show unfitness as a matter of law) and remanded; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the juvenile court, vacating the court of appeals’ opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court of appeals misapplied § 8‑533(B)(8)(c) by requiring an extra showing of unfitness | Court of appeals said evidence showed mental illness/volatile conduct but not "unfit as a matter of law" | § 8‑533(B)(8)(c)’s elements suffice to show parental unfitness; no separate § 8‑533(B)(2)/(3) labels required | Court: appellate court misinterpreted statute; elements of § 8‑533(B)(8)(c) can establish unfitness and court of appeals erred. |
| Whether appellate court exceeded scope by reweighing evidence | Mother favored reweighing to overturn termination | DCS argued appellate review must defer to juvenile court’s factual findings supported by reasonable evidence | Court: court of appeals impermissibly reweighed evidence; juvenile court findings supported by reasonable evidence. |
| Proper standard of appellate review for termination (clear & convincing mixed question) | Mother implicitly urged reversal under conventional review | DCS urged deference to juvenile court’s findings and legal conclusion unless clearly erroneous | Court: clarifies two‑part review — accept factual findings supported by reasonable evidence; legal conclusion that statutory ground is proven by clear & convincing evidence is affirmed unless clearly erroneous (i.e., no reasonable factfinder could find clear & convincing). |
| Whether court of appeals could dismiss underlying dependency when vacating termination | Mother (via court of appeals) suggested dependency might be dismissed if parent is fit | DCS: dependency finding was not before appellate court on this appeal and remains in effect; dismissal requires separate challenge | Court: appellate court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss dependency not raised on appeal; dependency remains and case returns to juvenile court for periodic review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental liberty interest and requirement of at least clear and convincing evidence for termination)
- Jessie D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 251 Ariz. 574 (Ariz. 2021) (standard of review principles in termination cases)
- Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146 (Ariz. 2018) (§ 8‑533(B)(8) functions as proxy for parental unfitness)
- Murillo v. Hernandez, 79 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 1955) (appellate review standard where clear and convincing evidence required)
- Timothy B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 252 Ariz. 470 (Ariz. 2022) (appellate affirmation standard referenced by courts)
- Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 9 (Ariz. 2019) (court of appeals vacated termination for lack of evidentiary support; dependency remained)
- In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JD‑561, 131 Ariz. 25 (Ariz. 1981) (statutory compliance required before altering parent‑child relationship)
- Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2016) (deference to juvenile court’s credibility and factual findings)