Jeremy M. v. Dcs, J.J.
1 CA-JV 16-0134
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Feb 9, 2017Background
- J.J., born 2006, was removed after a 2012 police raid of his mother’s home where drugs, a gun, and evidence of violent conduct were found; the juvenile court later found J.J. dependent and he was diagnosed with PTSD and severe behavioral problems.
- Father lived in North Carolina for most of J.J.’s life; paternity was established in 2012 and DCS offered reunification services including parenting classes, therapy referrals, supervised visitation, telephonic contact, and an ICPC home study.
- Over the dependency Father completed some services but inconsistently engaged in counseling, substance-abuse testing/treatment, and rarely participated in J.J.’s treatment team meetings or contacts with therapists.
- DCS alleged severance under A.R.S. § 8‑533(B)(3) (chronic substance abuse) and § 8‑533(B)(8)(c) (15 months out-of-home placement); the chronic-substance-abuse allegation was withdrawn and the court severed on the 15‑month out‑of‑home placement ground.
- The juvenile court found DCS proved the statutory elements: >15 months out of home, diligent efforts at reunification (issue waived on appeal), Father unable to remedy circumstances, and substantial likelihood Father could not provide proper care in the near future.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severance under A.R.S. § 8‑533(B)(8)(c) was supported by constitutional or statutory error | Father contended as a “non‑offending parent” he had a protected interest and DCS failed to prove his choices would harm J.J.; challenged DCS’s efforts | DCS argued Father failed to remedy circumstances, did not consistently participate in services, and was unlikely able to parent in the near future | Affirmed: record supports finding Father could not remedy circumstances and would likely be unable to parent in near future |
| Whether child’s special needs may be considered in proving statutory ground | Father argued inability to care for a special‑needs child should be reserved for best‑interests analysis | DCS said Father’s failure to engage with services addressing J.J.’s special needs is a relevant circumstance at time of severance | Court: Special needs are relevant to the statutory inquiry when tied to the parent’s inability to remedy the circumstances; Father’s nonparticipation supports severance |
| Adequacy/diligence of DCS reunification services | Father argued DCS failed to provide appropriate services and contact | DCS pointed to extensive offers: ICPC home study, therapy referrals, parenting class, visitation, travel offers, and communications | Waived on appeal for failure to object below; alternative finding that services were adequate in record |
| Credibility and sufficiency of evidence (including alleged hearsay about travel offer) | Father contested DCS testimony and contested some evidentiary bases | DCS relied on caseworker and therapist testimony showing inconsistent engagement and lack of parental involvement | Appellate court defers to juvenile court credibility findings and finds reasonable evidence supports severance; hearsay objections waived at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 76 (App. 2005) (clear‑and‑convincing burden for statutory grounds)
- Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 282 (App. 2011) (best‑interests standard is preponderance)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (appellate deference to juvenile court credibility findings)
- Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (App. 2009) (statutory inquiry focuses on circumstances existing at severance)
- Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS‑8441, 175 Ariz. 463 (App. 1993) (parent’s inconsistent participation in services may support severance)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (App. 2005) (abrogation noted on other grounds)