Jurnee H. v. Dcs, N.M.
1 CA-JV 16-0282
Ariz. Ct. App.Mar 28, 2017Background
- In March 2015, nine‑month‑old N.M. arrived at a hospital with extensive bruising over her body, oral trauma, blunt‑force trauma to the genitalia, and fractures consistent with non‑accidental injury; medical and forensic examiners concluded the injuries were the result of severe abuse and possibly sexual assault.
- Mother initially claimed sole care of the child but gave multiple inconsistent accounts about where the child had been; she later admitted leaving the child alone in the care of her friend David for long periods on March 7–8 and again on March 9–10.
- Family members and police interviews contradicted Mother’s early statements; Mother also admitted asking a family member to lie to investigators and gave shifting timelines about when she noticed bruises.
- DCS took the child into protective custody, placed her with foster parents, and filed a dependency petition; DCS later moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights solely on the ground of abuse or neglect.
- After contested severance hearings, the juvenile court found Mother’s credibility poor, concluded she either caused or should have protected the child from abuse (particularly given David’s history), and determined termination was in the child’s best interest. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported severance for abuse or neglect under A.R.S. § 8‑533(B)(2) | Mother argued no evidence showed she abused the child or knew/should have known David was abusing the child; at most poor judgment | DCS argued the child suffered severe non‑accidental injuries, Mother gave inconsistent statements, left the child with a known abuser, and thus either perpetrated or failed to protect the child | Affirmed: reasonable evidence supported termination for abuse/neglect; Mother either caused or should have prevented the abuse |
| Whether Mother was denied due process by being offered reunification services before severance | Mother contended it was unfair to provide reunification instead of immediate severance given the available facts | DCS and court noted Mother received notice, counsel, cross‑examination, and that reunification services did not deprive procedural rights; DCS may not have known later admissions at initial hearing | Affirmed: Mother received due process (notice, counsel, opportunity to be heard); offering services did not violate due process |
| Whether severance was in the child’s best interest | Mother argued compliance with services meant severance was not warranted | DCS argued the child was bonded to foster family, thriving, had potential adoptive placements, and Mother posed ongoing risk due to poor judgment and psychological issues | Affirmed: severance was in the child’s best interest — provided benefit and eliminated potential harm |
| Whether juvenile court improperly weighed evidence/credibility | Mother asserted the court erred by relying on disputed facts and credibility findings | DCS argued credibility and fact‑weighing are for the juvenile court; record contains inconsistent statements and expert opinions about risk | Affirmed: appellate court will not reweigh credibility; juvenile court’s findings supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (court may terminate parental rights if statutory standard met) (Ariz. 2005)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (burden of proof in parental‑rights termination) (U.S. 1982)
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (parental liberty interest and limits) (Ariz. 2000)
- Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (deference to juvenile court on credibility and factual findings) (App. 2009)
- Matthew L. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 547 (standard for upsetting juvenile court findings) (App. 2010)