Carolina H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
232 Ariz. 569
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- ADES received a report that Mother struck her 11-year-old son; ADES provided services but Mother did not fully participate and refused a hair follicle test.
- The child was removed and placed with a relative; ADES filed a dependency petition alleging physical abuse and drug abuse by Mother.
- After a two-day adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found ADES had not proven the petition’s allegations by a preponderance of the evidence (no proven physical abuse; hair test negative; drug use not established).
- Although the court concluded ADES failed to meet its burden and the petition statutorily required dismissal, the court nonetheless found the child "dependent" based on an unpled "substantial disconnect" between Mother and child and ordered dependency instead of dismissing the petition.
- ADES did not move to amend its petition to include "substantial disconnect," and Mother was not given notice or opportunity to contest that theory at the hearing.
- The appellate court vacated the dependency determination and remanded for dismissal, holding a court may not amend a party’s pleadings on its own motion after adjudication to conform to evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile court may, on its own motion after adjudication, amend a dependency petition to find dependency on an unpled ground | Mother: Court erred because ADES did not prove allegations; court was required to dismiss the petition | ADES: Court could deem petition amended to conform to evidence under Rule 15(b) | Court held it cannot amend pleadings on its own motion after trial; vacated dependency and remanded for dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (state must meet procedural and substantive protections before terminating parental rights)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (due process protections in juvenile dependency proceedings)
- Meryl R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 24 (1999) (standard of review for dependency statute interpretation)
- Smith v. Continental Bank, 130 Ariz. 320 (1981) (trial court may not amend a party’s pleadings on its own motion after trial to conform to the evidence)