Joel M. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 16-0487

Child born Feb 2015 with glutaric acidemia requiring constant medical care, strict diet, and isolation; placed in licensed foster home for medically fragile children shortly after birth.
Shortly after birth Father was arrested for DUI while under the influence of methamphetamine and opiates with Child in the car; DCS removed Child and alleged neglect based on Father’s substance abuse and domestic violence.
Father repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine, opiates, and benzodiazepines, attended substance-treatment sporadically, missed psychological evaluations, and did not complete offered services or establish sustained sobriety.
Foster parents are medically trained, provide full-time care, have bonded with Child, and DCS described Child as “highly adoptable” though no specific adoptive placement was required to be identified.
Juvenile court found statutory severance grounds (A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(b) and (B)(3)) and that termination was in Child’s best interests; Father appealed only the best-interests finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether severance was shown to be in Child’s best interests given uncertainty about adoption	Father argued DCS failed to prove severance was in Child’s best interests because it was unclear whether Child was adoptable or had a planned adoptive placement; if not adoptable, no benefit shown from terminating parental ties	DCS argued permanency is a benefit where parents retain rights but don’t assume responsibilities; adoption plan or specific adoptive placement is not required if current placement meets Child’s needs and permanency is served by severance	Court affirmed: severance was in Child’s best interests because foster home met Child’s extensive needs, Father had not remedied substance abuse or provided stability, and permanency outweighs continued parental ties
Whether Father waived challenge to sufficiency of juvenile-court findings	Father asserted the best-interests finding lacked clarity about adoptability	DCS argued waiver for failing to seek specific findings below; court nonetheless addressed the merits	Court exercised discretion to decide on the merits and rejected Father’s argument

Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (discusses burden and standards for severance) (2005)
Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (explains best-interests analysis and permanency rationale) (2004)
James S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 351 (permanency is a benefit supporting severance) (1998)
Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376 (standard for affirming termination when evidence supports findings) (1999)
Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 345 (factors for evaluating adoptability and permanency) (2013)
Britz v. Kinsvater, 87 Ariz. 385 (trial-court findings entitled to deference when not challenged) (1960)