K.D. v. Hoffman
238 Ariz. 278
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- DCS initiated dependency and termination proceedings against parents of K.D. (born 2001) and H.D. (born 2004).
- K.D., then in foster care, requested to attend and testify at consolidated dependency/termination hearings; she was represented by counsel.
- Two mental-health professionals (K.D.’s therapist and DCS’s psychologist) advised that attendance/testimony would harm K.D. and cause regression; K.D. offered no contrary evidence.
- The juvenile court denied K.D.’s requests to be present and testify at the near-term consolidated hearings, citing her best interests and therapeutic readiness.
- K.D. sought special action relief, arguing an absolute statutory right under A.R.S. § 8-529(A)(16) to attend and speak at her hearing.
- The court accepted special action jurisdiction and reviewed de novo whether the juvenile court could consider the child’s best interests in denying attendance/testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a child in foster care has an absolute right to attend and testify at dependency/termination hearings | K.D.: A.R.S. § 8-529(A)(16) grants an absolute right to attend and speak to the judge | DCS/Juvenile Court: The statutory right is not absolute; rules and best-interests principles control | No absolute right; juvenile court may consider child’s best interests |
| Whether the juvenile court must consider the child’s best interests when deciding attendance/testimony requests | K.D.: Court should not override statutory right based on best interests | Juvenile Court/DCS: Rule 36 and case law require best-interests consideration in juvenile proceedings | Court must consider child’s best interests under Rule 36 and precedent |
| Whether A.R.S. § 8-529 creates an enforceable, litigable right to attend hearings | K.D.: Statute grants right to attend and speak | State: § 8-529(C) disclaims creation of legally enforceable rights; legislative history supports nonabsolute character | § 8-529 does not create a legally enforceable absolute right |
| Whether prior precedent allows balancing parental/trial rights against child’s best interests | K.D.: Implied challenge that rights should be protected without limiting child access | DCS/Juvenile Court: Beene and other cases permit weighing rights against child welfare | Precedent permits balancing; child’s best interests can outweigh other trial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris, 234 Ariz. 343 (discussing special action jurisdiction)
- Dep’t of Child Safety v. Beene, 235 Ariz. 300 (juvenile court may weigh child’s best interests against parental due-process rights to call children as witnesses)
- Alexander M. v. Abrams, 235 Ariz. 104 (juvenile court must consider child’s best interests in dependency decisions)
- Xavier R. v. Joseph R., 230 Ariz. 96 (juvenile rules interpreted to protect child’s best interests)
- Kenneth T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 212 Ariz. 150 (best interests relevant to termination proceedings)
Conclusion: The juvenile court properly considered K.D.’s best interests in denying attendance/testimony requests; no absolute statutory right existed under § 8-529 and special action relief was denied.