Dominique M. v. Department of Child Safety
240 Ariz. 96
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother had two children at issue: J.M. (b. 2010) and A.M. (b. 2013); both adjudicated dependent after removal for domestic violence, substance abuse, and Mother’s mental illness.
- DCS provided reunification services (substance treatment, mental-health services, parental aide, transportation), but Mother did not consistently comply: continued domestic violence, inconsistent drug testing, used marijuana without card, and refused prescribed psychiatric medications.
- Guardian ad litem moved to sever Mother’s rights on multiple statutory grounds, including chronic drug abuse, mental illness, prior recent severance of Mother’s other children, and extended out-of-home placements.
- The juvenile court found statutory grounds proved and, by a preponderance, that severance was in the Children’s best interests; it found A.M. had a prospective adoptive placement and J.M. was adoptable.
- Mother appealed only the best-interests finding, arguing bonds with the children, regular visitation and provision of gifts, and lack of a current adoptive plan for J.M.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding reasonable evidence supported the juvenile court’s best-interests determination (both affirmative benefits of severance and elimination of detriments from continued parental relationship).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severance is in children’s best interests | Mother: bond with children, regular visits, provided goods, and no identified adoptive plan for J.M.; severance harms children | DCS: severance creates adoption eligibility, A.M. has prospective adoptive placement, J.M. is adoptable, continued relationship poses risk due to mother’s ongoing problems | Court affirmed: reasonable evidence supports best-interests finding — severance provides affirmative benefits and removes risks |
Key Cases Cited
- Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92 (App. 2009) (standard of review on juvenile best-interests findings)
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (App. 2002) (appellate review does not reweigh evidence)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute; burdens for severance)
- Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1 (1990) (benefits of severance include adoption eligibility and removal of detriments)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (best-interests showing may be affirmative benefit or elimination of detriment)
- Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348 (App. 1994) (child’s adoptability can support severance even without a preexisting adoption plan)
- Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376 (App. 1998) (current placement meeting child’s needs supports severance)
- Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 345 (App. 2013) (bond with parent is a factor but not dispositive in best-interests analysis)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due process protections in parental-rights termination)
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (framework for parental-rights termination analysis)