Jean K. v. Jeremy M., J.K.
1 CA-JV 16-0166
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- Child (born 2006) is the biological daughter of Jean K. (Mother) and Jeremy M. (Father); Father and Child are enrolled Navajo Nation members.
- DCS custody and dependency history: child briefly in DCS custody as a minor; Father obtained custody in 2011 after which Mother was largely absent and in and out of custody for criminal matters and drug-related issues through 2015.
- Mother had supervised visitation granted in 2012 and was ordered to submit to six months of urinalysis and participate in reunification therapy; she provided only one clean UA and cancelled requested visits.
- Father filed for termination (abandonment under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1)) in 2014; first severance trial in 2015 found ICWA inapplicable but on appeal this court held ICWA did apply and remanded for a new ICWA-compliant hearing.
- At the 2016 ICWA hearing, an Indian child welfare expert (Richard England) testified that active efforts were made, those efforts failed, Mother’s continued custody was likely to cause emotional harm, and termination/adoption would promote cultural connection and stability; juvenile court terminated Mother’s rights and found termination in Child’s best interests under Arizona law and ICWA.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s/State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in Child’s best interests under A.R.S. § 8‑533 and ICWA | Mother: court relied solely on adoptability; insufficient evidence that termination met best‑interests standard | Father/State: evidence of Mother’s long absence, instability, ongoing drug issues, and expert testimony supported best interests and ICWA findings | Court affirmed: sufficient evidence supports best‑interests finding under statutory and ICWA standards |
| Whether ICWA requirements (active efforts and expert testimony re: likely serious harm) were met | Mother: expert proof insufficient to meet ICWA’s heightened standards | Father/State: expert testified to active efforts, failure of services, and likelihood of serious emotional harm; adoption would promote tribal culture | Court affirmed: expert testimony satisfied ICWA’s requirements and active efforts were shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Valerie M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 219 Ariz. 331 (2009) (ICWA requires proof of active efforts and expert testimony showing likely serious harm)
- Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 76 (2005) (statutory ground for termination must be shown by clear and convincing evidence)
- Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 282 (2011) (best‑interests standard is preponderance of the evidence)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (2004) (trial court’s credibility findings entitled to deference)
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (1999) (appellate review of severance orders is for clear error)
- Jennifer B. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 189 Ariz. 553 (1997) (appellate courts accept trial court fact findings if reasonable evidence supports them)
- Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1 (2016) (child’s interest in stable home life weighs against a parent’s diluted interest)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (framework for balancing parental and child interests in severance cases)
- Steven H. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 566 (2008) (expert testimony about past conduct permits inference of likely future harm)
- Birtz v. Kinsvater, 87 Ariz. 385 (1960) (failure to challenge a ground concedes its accuracy)