Jerome H. v. Dcs, J.H.
1 CA-JV 17-0314
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Father (Jerome H.) lived in California; child J.H. moved to Arizona with mother in 2015 and was 9 months old on arrival.
- DCS opened a dependency after maternal relatives took interim custody and alleged neglect/unsafe conditions; children were later placed in foster care.
- Father had no contact with or financial support for J.H. for ~17 months; DCS served notice in July 2016, father failed to appear at the dependency hearing, and the child was adjudicated dependent.
- In January 2017 the plan changed from reunification to severance and adoption; father moved to Arizona, began supervised visits and services in February 2017 after DCS moved to sever.
- Juvenile court found abandonment and that father could not remedy conditions leading to custody (and was unlikely to do so in the near future), and that termination was in the child’s best interests; parental rights were terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports severance for abandonment under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1) | Father argued he maintained a relationship and later engaged in services, rebutting abandonment | Father had 17 months without contact or support; late post-petition efforts do not rebut prima facie abandonment | Court affirmed: abandonment proven; father’s late attempts insufficient to overcome presumption |
| Whether severance could be upheld on 9- or 15-month out-of-home placement grounds | Father challenged those grounds (argued ability to parent, stable home/income) | DCS alleged statutory out-of-home placement grounds (case plan changed; child in foster care, adoptable) | Court declined to address further because abandonment alone supported severance |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interests | Father argued he can provide stable home and income, so termination is not needed | DCS pointed to child’s stability, bonding with foster/adoptive placement and sibling continuity | Court affirmed: termination served child’s best interests due to permanency, stability, adoptability |
| Credibility of father’s testimony and weight of evidence | Father urged the court to credit his testimony and changed circumstances | DCS highlighted inconsistencies and belated efforts; case manager testified to lack of prior parenting/support | Court credited DCS evidence and found father’s testimony of limited weight; appellate court defers to juvenile court credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (burden and standards for termination: clear-and-convincing statutory ground and preponderance for best interests)
- Calvin B. v. Brittany B., 232 Ariz. 292 (App. 2013) (standard of review for termination orders—abuse of discretion; sufficiency of evidence)
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (abandonment measured by conduct not intent)
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (App. 2002) (appellate courts defer to juvenile court on credibility and, if one statutory ground is supported, other grounds need not be reached)
- Lashonda M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 210 Ariz. 77 (App. 2005) (appellate court should not reweigh evidence)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (factors for assessing child’s best interests include placement meeting needs, adoptability, and adoption plan)
- Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (App. 2009) (review of record in light most favorable to sustaining juvenile court decision)