Jade K. v. Loraine K. and A.K.
240 Ariz. 414
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jade and Loraine divorced in 2011; they had temporary joint legal custody of their daughter A.K., with Jade having frequent unsupervised weekend parenting time through July 2014.
- On July 31, 2014, during Jade’s parenting time, A.K. left his apartment unsupervised, ate wild mushrooms, became ill, and was treated and released from a hospital.
- In June 2015 Loraine filed a private petition to terminate Jade’s parental rights alleging neglect and abandonment; proceedings were held and Loraine later moved to North Carolina.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the July 31 incident constituted neglect under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) and terminated Jade’s parental rights, finding termination in the child’s best interests by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The juvenile court explicitly rejected other alleged acts of neglect and found insufficient evidence of abandonment; on appeal the court limited review to whether the single incident supported termination.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the record lacked clear and convincing evidence that Jade’s conduct on July 31 reflected an inability or unwillingness to supervise rendering him unfit to parent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single incident of unsupervised play resulting in ingestion of poisonous mushrooms can constitute neglect sufficient for termination under § 8-533(B)(2) | Loraine: the July 31 incident shows Jade neglected A.K. by failing to supervise, creating unreasonable risk of harm, so termination is justified | Jade: single isolated incident is insufficient; record lacks evidence he was unable or unwilling to supervise or otherwise unfit | Reversed — single incident, without evidence Jade’s inability/unwillingness made him unfit, did not meet clear and convincing standard for termination |
| Whether the evidence supported finding Jade relied on an "apparently baseless assumption" that others were supervising A.K. | Loraine: testimony and social worker report support that Jade assumed others watched A.K. and that assumption was baseless | Jade: record contains no direct testimony about why he assumed A.K. was supervised; no proof he knew or disregarded danger | Reversed — no record support for the court’s finding that Jade made an unsupported assumption; social worker speculation insufficient |
| Whether the juvenile court properly applied the burden of proof for severance (clear and convincing) | Loraine: court applied standard and found clear and convincing evidence of neglect | Jade: argues the evidence does not meet the clear and convincing threshold | Reversed — appellate court emphasized heightened proof required and found threshold not met |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests (dispositive only if statutory ground proved) | Loraine: termination would allow stepfather adoption and stability | Jade: contends best-interest finding unnecessary if statutory ground not proved | Not reached on merits — appellate reversal based on insufficiency of statutory ground evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (discussing standard of review for termination orders)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (explaining requirement of proving statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence and separate best-interest inquiry)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental rights require high evidentiary standard before termination)
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (recognizing termination is a challenged state action extinguishing parent-child relationship)
- Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92 (standard for reversing termination for insufficient evidence)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (deference to juvenile court on credibility and factual disputes)
- In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-7359, 159 Ariz. 232 (noting Arizona termination framework incorporates parental unfitness concept)