Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B.
1 CA-JV 17-0329
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Father (Eddie B.), hearing impaired, had son E.B. removed by DCS after domestic-violence incidents in 2014; E.B. placed with maternal aunt Hallie H. and adjudicated dependent as to father.
- E.B. showed significant improvement while living with Hallie; parents separated after removal.
- Father’s case plan required addressing domestic violence/anger, counseling, parenting aide, and supervised visits; DCS provided sign-language interpreters for father but did not provide ASL instruction to E.B.
- In December 2016 the juvenile court changed the case plan to relative guardianship with a secondary plan of severance/adoption and set a target date; guardian ad litem later sought permanent guardianship for Hallie.
- At the guardianship hearing the court found (1) E.B. had been with Hallie for at least nine months, (2) DCS made reasonable reunification efforts but further efforts would be unproductive, and (3) termination of parental rights was not in E.B.’s interest; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS made reasonable reunification efforts | Father: DCS failed to provide E.B. ASL instruction, impairing reunification | DCS: Provided reasonable services to father (counseling, visitation, interpreters, parenting classes); no requirement to provide every conceivable service | Held: Affirmed — court reasonably found DCS made reasonable efforts despite no ASL training for E.B. |
| Whether further reunification efforts would be unproductive (A.R.S. § 8-871(A)(3)) | Father: Evidence does not clearly and convincingly show further efforts would be unproductive; father showed recent improvement | DCS: Father inconsistent in counseling; exhibited hostile episodes and threatened participants; progress insufficient | Held: Reversed — record lacks clear and convincing evidence that further efforts would be unproductive; guardianship ruling premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (App. 2002) (appellate review accepts juvenile court’s findings of fact unless unsupported)
- Jennifer B. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 189 Ariz. 553 (App. 1997) (clear-and-convincing standard applies to statutory grounds for permanency)
- Valerie M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 219 Ariz. 155 (App. 2008) (clarifies application of proof standard in parental-rights contexts)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (App. 2005) (defines clear-and-convincing standard as high or reasonably certain probability)
- Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (App. 2011) (reasonable efforts do not require every conceivable service)
- Cochise Cty. Juv. Action No. 5666–J, 133 Ariz. 157 (1982) (permanency determinations should be reserved for extreme cases)
- Park Cent. Dev. Co. v. Roberts Dry Goods, Inc., 11 Ariz. App. 58 (App. 1970) (standard for finding 'clearly erroneous')
- Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 571 (App. 1994) (passage of time can justify permanency determinations but indefinite remediation not required)