Jeff D. v. Department of Child Safety
239 Ariz. 205
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- DCS filed dependency for a one-year-old child in Jan 2013; case plan changed to severance and adoption in Oct 2014.
- Child was placed with foster parents (Jeff and Erika D.) on Jan 7, 2015, as a prospective adoptive placement.
- About five weeks later, the child’s great aunt and uncle (Lane and Sherry S.) sought intervention and custody, filed an ICPC report from Wisconsin, and DCS and the mother supported the placement with them.
- Superior court held an "oral argument" hearing (not an evidentiary hearing); foster parents had submitted written bonding/psychological reports but were not permitted to call those authors to testify in person.
- The court found both homes suitable but applied the statutory kinship placement preference (A.R.S. § 8-514(B)) and awarded physical custody to the great aunt and uncle as being in the child’s best interests.
- Foster parents appealed, arguing denial of due process (no live testimony) and misapplication of the placement-preference statute.
Issues
| Issue | Foster Parents' Argument | DCS / Great Aunt & Uncle's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foster parents were denied due process by being prevented from calling witness authors of submitted reports | Court set evidentiary hearing but refused testimony; lack of live testimony prejudiced them | Hearing was designated "oral argument"; foster parents received notice, submitted reports, and had opportunity to be heard; no indication witnesses would add relevant facts | No due-process violation: court considered written reports, allowed argument and intervention; no showing of prejudice |
| Whether § 8-514(B)(3) placement preference for "kinship care with another member of the child's extended family" excludes great-aunt/uncle because § 8-501(A)(13) defines "relative" without "great-aunt/uncle" | The definition of "relative" limits "extended family" to those enumerated in § 8-501(A) so great-aunt/uncle get no statutory preference | § 8-514(B) uses broader language ("extended family") and does not use the defined term "relative"; legislative context shows broader scope | Court properly applied § 8-514(B)(3) to great-aunt/uncle; statute read broadly and not limited by § 8-501(A)(13) |
| Whether foster parents’ asserted "significant relationship" entitlement under § 8-514(B)(3) overcame kinship preference | Foster parents argued their significant relationship with child warranted statutory preference | Court found foster placement duration short (~4 months), so no statutory preference over relatives | Court did not err in declining to give foster parents the preference; factual determination supported |
| Whether placement with great-aunt/uncle was contrary to the child’s best interests | Foster parents argued the court misapplied statute and ignored child's best interests, and that inaccuracies in the order mattered | DCS and guardian ad litem emphasized kinship, commitment to adopt, and family connections; guardian acknowledged both homes were excellent | Court's best-interest determination was supported: both families suitable but kinship preference and family connection favored great-aunt/uncle; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process requires opportunity to be heard at meaningful time and manner)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (state must provide fundamentally fair procedures when terminating parental rights)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462 (courts may not decide disputed credibility-based issues solely on counsel argument; testimony required when credibility matters)
- Antonio P. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 402 (placement orders reviewed for abuse of discretion; best interests control)