Ernest v. Carylee W. v. Dcs
1 CA-JV 21-0277
| Ariz. Ct. App. | May 5, 2022Background:
- In Aug. 2020 police found drugs, paraphernalia, and two loaded unsecured handguns accessible to two children (ages 9 and 11); older child’s hair tested positive for methamphetamine.
- DCS removed the children, petitioned for dependency, and the court found dependency in Oct. 2020.
- Mother initially engaged in services, then relapsed, stopped testing, was convicted of child endangerment, and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
- Father largely refused services (later completed two classes) and had limited participation; DCS documented home hazards and parental noncompliance.
- DCS moved to terminate parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533 (neglect, substance abuse, nature-of-felony for Mother, 9-months-out-of-home for Father); the superior court terminated both parents’ rights.
- Case manager testified the children were adoptable (no special needs; positive behaviors) and someone had expressed interest in adopting; parents appealed termination.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Consideration of firearms and the right to bear arms | Father: Court improperly relied on firearms, implicating constitutional right to bear arms | DCS: Right to bear arms inapplicable to felons and concern was child safety from loaded, unsecured guns | Court: No error — focus was children’s safety; father (a felon) lacks protected interest in firearm possession |
| 2. Standing to raise third party Second Amendment rights | Father: Court’s consideration infringed brother’s right (one gun belonged to brother) | DCS: Father lacks standing to assert third party rights and no evidence brother unable to assert them | Court: Father failed to show standing to raise brother’s rights; no evidence infringement on brother |
| 3. Adequacy of best-interests findings (due process) | Parents: Findings were formulaic/conclusory and insufficient for appellate review | DCS: Findings that adoption would provide permanency/stability and parents’ failures supported best-interests conclusion | Court: Findings sufficient; summary findings acceptable where grounds and facts are straightforward |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence that termination benefits child (adoptability) | Parents: Adoption was only "theoretical" because no specific adoptive home identified and no evidence adoption likely | DCS: Need not have a specific adoptive plan; evidence (caseworker testimony, child characteristics, interest from a potential adopter) showed adoptability and likely adoption | Court: Reasonable evidence supports adoptability and that termination would benefit the children; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (standard for proving statutory grounds and best-interests balancing)
- Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 236 (2012) (trial court must specify factual findings sufficient to support legal conclusions)
- Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146 (2018) (court must consider totality including adoptability and parental rehabilitation)
- In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348 (1994) (DCS need not have a specific adoption plan before termination)
- Titus S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 365 (2018) (when a child’s consent is required and they oppose adoption, adoption may be unlikely)
- Lisa K. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 173 (2012) (standard of appellate review for constitutional issues)