Gabrielle F. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 17-0089

Mother (Gabrielle F.) had two children: R.A. (b.2011) and F.R. (b.2015). D.R., the children’s father, physically abused R.A. after R.A. had been reunified with Mother.
R.A. reported being hit and kicked in the shower; DCS documented bruises, lumps, and a handprint-like bruise on R.A.’s body.
Mother denied awareness of the injuries and continued to live with D.R. after the abuse was discovered; DCS filed dependency and termination actions.
DCS sought termination of Mother's rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) (failure to protect/abuse) as to both children and § 8-533(B)(11)(d) as to R.A.; the superior court held combined dependency and severance hearings.
The superior court terminated Mother’s parental rights to both children, finding she failed to protect them and that severance was in the children’s best interests; Mother appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports severance under § 8-533(B)(2) for failure to protect from physical abuse	Mother argued evidence did not support termination; she asserted lack of proof she knew of or permitted abuse	DCS argued R.A.’s injuries, Mother’s denial, and her continued cohabitation with abuser demonstrated failure to protect	Court held evidence supported termination under § 8-533(B)(2) for both children (Mother failed to protect)
Whether a nexus existed between abuse of R.A. and risk to F.R. (required when severing rights to one child based on abuse of another)	Mother disputed termination as to F.R., arguing no showing of risk to that child	DCS argued Mother’s past failure to protect R.A. and evidence that she would likely continue to fail constituted sufficient nexus and future risk	Court found reasonable evidence (including caseworker testimony) supported an implicit nexus and termination as to F.R.
Whether severance was in the children’s best interests	Mother contended severance was not shown to be in best interests	DCS highlighted children’s improved, stable placements, unmet medical/emotional needs in Mother’s care, and risk of continued harm	Court held by preponderance that severance served the children’s best interests (stable, potentially adoptive placements meeting needs)

Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (standard for termination: clear-and-convincing statutory grounds and best-interests by preponderance)
Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376 (1998) (appellate review: affirm unless factual findings clearly erroneous)
E.R. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 56 (App. 2015) (abuse includes allowing physical injury and parental knowledge/constructive knowledge)
Tina T. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 236 Ariz. 295 (App. 2014) (parental rights may be severed for permitting abuse of one child even when other children were not abused; nexus required)
Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (App. 2009) (trial court best positioned to assess witness credibility and weigh evidence)
Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (appellate courts may infer necessary implicit findings if record supports them)
Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (App. 2002) (best-interests standard and that proof may show removal benefit or detriment from continuing relationship)