Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L.
239 Ariz. 1
| Ariz. | 2016Background
- Mother seeks to terminate Father’s rights to D.L. (9) after years of no contact; Father abandoned and provided no support after 2010
- D.L. resides with Mother and her husband (Stepfather) who desires to adopt him and has a stable, loving relationship with D.L.
- Stepfather has long provided for D.L.; adoption would formalize him as a legal father and secure custody
- Court found abandonment by Father by clear and convincing evidence and best interests in favor of severance by preponderance of the evidence
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding adoption plan did not establish a best-interests finding; Arizona Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded for abandonment issue
- This decision holds that adoption benefits can support a best-interests finding in private severance actions just as in state-initiated actions, and overrules Jose M. v. Eleanor J.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can adoption by a non-parent adoptive stepparent support a best-interests finding in private severance | Mother argues Stepfather’s planned adoption benefits D.L. | Father argues adopting parent benefits are insufficient to justify severance in private actions | Yes; adoption benefits can support a best-interests finding in private severance |
| Whether Jose M. standard governs private severance actions or is distinguishable | Mother relies on broader best-interests standard | Father relies on Jose M. requirements | Court disavows Jose M. for private severance; applies case-by-case analysis |
| Whether adoption’s impact on stability/permanence outweighs existing placement in private severance | Adoption would increase stability by formalizing Stepfather’s parental role | Current stable placement already meets needs; no added benefit from severance | Adoption provides sufficient benefits to support best interests under the circumstances |
| Is the private best-interests inquiry distinct from state-initiated actions in considering adoptive placement | Adoption prospect is a valid best-interest factor even in private action | Private action requires more stringent showing | No principled distinction; no extra hurdle in private actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (adoption availability and existing placement are factors in best interests)
- Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376 (App. 1998) (factors including immediate availability of adoption placement)
- Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373 (App. 2010) (considering best-interests factors including adoption; child is adoptable)
- In re Pima Cty. Juv. Action No. B-9385, 138 Ariz. 291 ((1983)) (adoption solidifies parent-child relationship and permanency)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (best-interests balancing with unfitness; child’s stability priority)