E.R. v. Department of Child Safety
237 Ariz. 56
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In Oct. 2012, DCS received a report that Mother abused E.R. and his siblings while living with Father.
- The children were removed and dependency petitions were filed; the juvenile court later found Father failed to protect them from Mother’s abuse.
- Mother pled guilty to two counts of child abuse and was sentenced to seven years in prison; DCS sought to terminate both parents’ rights.
- A severance trial found Mother abused the children and Father was aware or should have been aware, but the court denied severance under § 8-533(B)(2) and found insufficient evidence for § 8-533(B)(8)(a).
- Appellant Guardian Ad Litem timely appealed the denial of severance as to E.R.; the appellate court vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The court also addressed redaction of certain reports, concluding no reversible evidentiary error based on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 8-533(B)(2) require only abuse/neglect, not serious injury? | 8-533(B)(2) encompasses more than serious injury. | 8-533(B)(2) requires serious physical or emotional injury (or diagnosis). | Statutory meaning not limited to serious injury; vacate and remand. |
| Was the § 8-533(B)(8)(a) determination based on an erroneous standard? | Court applied incorrect standard for ‘substantial neglect or willful refusal to remedy’. | Court properly applied the statute to Father’s conduct. | Because of the erroneous standard on (B)(2), vacate as to § 8-533(B)(8)(a). |
| Did the redaction of reports prejudice Appellant at severance trial? | Redactions deprived the court of relevant information about parenting ability and remedy efforts. | No demonstrated prejudice; witnesses testified and reports discussed. | No reversible error based on record; not shown how redacted info altered outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- James H. v. Ariz. Dep’t. Econ. Sec., 210 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2005) (statutory interpretation de novo for § 8-533(B)(2))
- Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (Ariz. 2004) (clear-error/abuse of discretion standard for severance findings)
- Beene, Dep’t of Child Safety v. Beene, 235 Ariz. 300 (Ariz. 2014) (protecting the health and safety of children in severance context)
- Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Indus. Comm’n of Ariz., 227 Ariz. 453 (Ariz. 2011) (word 'includes' as enlargement in statutory interpretation)
- State v. Witwer, 175 Ariz. 305 (Ariz. 1993) (interpretation of inclusory terms; limitation/enlargement distinction)
- Montgomery v. Harris, 234 Ariz. 343 (Ariz. 2014) (statutory interpretation considerations in Arizona appellate review)
- Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462 (Ariz. 2003) (interpretation and structure of statutory provisions)
- Loop 101, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC, 233 Ariz. 355 (Ariz. 2013) (considerations of statutory scheme in interpretation)