Cynthia G. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 16-0081

Background

In January 2014, infant M.G. presented with multiple fractures (an arm condylar fracture and several healing and an acute posterior rib fractures); medical testimony indicated non-accidental trauma. DCS removed M.G. and his older brother A.G. from parents’ care.
A.G. was a vulnerable toddler diagnosed with Down syndrome and Hirschsprung’s disease, raising concerns about risk of harm in the home.
Parents were the sole caregivers and offered explanations for M.G.’s injuries that medical experts rejected as inconsistent with the nature and force required for the fractures.
DCS filed to terminate both parents’ rights, alleging willful abuse (A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2)) and prolonged out-of-home placement (A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c)); the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights.
On appeal, Mother challenged sufficiency of evidence for willful abuse and whether severance was in the children’s best interests. The court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for willful abuse under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2)	Mother: Evidence was inconclusive as to cause of M.G.’s injuries; DCS failed to prove abuse by clear and convincing evidence.	DCS: Medical testimony and circumstantial evidence showed multiple severe non-accidental injuries; parents were sole caregivers and could not explain injuries, so Mother knew or should have known of abuse.	Affirmed — clear and convincing circumstantial and medical evidence supported finding Mother either abused M.G. or knew of and failed to prevent abuse.
Severance as to A.G. (nexus/risk to other child)	Mother: (not specifically argued on appeal)	DCS: Abuse of M.G. created risk to vulnerable A.G.; nexus supports severance of rights to both children.	Affirmed — court reasonably found nexus between abuse of M.G. and risk to A.G., justifying severance.
Best interests of the children	Mother: Severance is not in children’s best interests.	DCS: Children are vulnerable, adoptable, and would benefit from permanency and safety; parents failed to resolve abuse issues.	Affirmed — preponderance of evidence showed severance promoted safety, permanency, and adoptability.
Need to consider alternative ground of 15 months in care	Mother: (argued insufficiency generally)	DCS: Alternative statutory grounds were available.	Not reached — appellate court affirmed on willful abuse ground, so did not evaluate 15‑month ground.

Key Cases Cited

Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (App. 2010) (appellate standard: affirm termination supported by reasonable evidence and deference to factfinder).
Oscar O. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (trial court best positioned to weigh credibility and resolve disputed facts).
Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (App. 1999) (termination requires clear and convincing proof of a statutory ground and best interests finding).
Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 76 (App. 2005) (§ 8-533(B)(2) supports termination where parent knew or should have known of abuse by another).
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 222 Ariz. 48 (App. 2009) (circumstantial evidence has same probative value as direct evidence).
Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 282 (App. 2011) (nexus requirement supports severance of rights to other children when risk of recurrence exists).
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1 (App. 2016) (best-interests inquiry proceeds after statutory ground is found).
Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (App. 2005) (standard for best-interests showing by preponderance).
Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (ways DCS may prove best interests, including adoptability evidence).
Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376 (App. 1999) (adoptability or current placement meeting needs can support best-interests finding).
Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 280 Ariz. 348 (App. 2010) (factors relevant to best-interests analysis).