Kara B. v. Dcs, A.B.
1 CA-JV 21-0001
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2021Background
- Mother had a long history of methamphetamine abuse and previously lost parental rights to three children (one termination in 2009, two more in 2016).
- A.B. was born in September 2018; Mother tested positive for amphetamines at the hospital and admitted early-pregnancy meth use; DCS removed the child.
- DCS required sobriety and participation in services (drug testing, visitation, parent-aide, psychological evaluation) for reunification; Mother repeatedly refused court-ordered drug testing and was closed out of services for nonparticipation.
- Mother exhibited combative and impulsive behavior at a DCS team meeting; a psychologist warned her meth use could lead to neglect of a young child.
- Juvenile court found A.B. dependent and terminated Mother’s parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) (chronic substance abuse), concluding Mother could not discharge parental responsibilities; Mother appealed.
- Court of Appeals affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported the substance-abuse ground and severance was in the child’s best interests; dependency challenge was moot given termination.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | DCS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported severance under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) (chronic substance abuse) | Mother: insufficient proof she currently cannot parent; she showed bonding, attended classes, and behaved appropriately in visits; no “hard evidence” of current use | DCS: long history of chronic meth abuse, prior terminations, refusal to submit to drug testing, psychologist’s opinion, and disruptive/impulsive behaviors support inference of ongoing substance problems | Affirmed — court reasonably inferred ongoing inability to parent from history and refusal to test; evidence supported the statutory ground |
| Whether severance was in the child’s best interests | Mother: (did not meaningfully contest on appeal) | DCS: child needed permanence and stability in a substance-free, adoptive home; child had thrived in adoptive placement | Affirmed — court found reasonable evidence severance served child’s best interests; Mother waived appellate challenge |
| Sufficiency of dependency adjudication | Mother: dependency finding lacked support | DCS: separate termination made dependency appeal moot; dependency findings would be subsumed by severance | Moot — because termination was affirmed, dependency challenge need not be addressed; even if considered, evidence supported dependency |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (severance requires clear-and-convincing proof of a statutory ground and preponderance showing termination is in child’s best interests)
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (2002) (appellate court need not address multiple grounds if any one statutory ground is supported)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (trial court is best positioned to weigh credibility and evidence in dependency/severance proceedings; adoptive placement supports best-interests finding)
- Montoya v. Superior Court, 173 Ariz. 129 (App. 1992) (courts may draw adverse inferences from a party’s refusal to answer or to submit to testing in custody-related proceedings)
- Matthew L. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 547 (App. 2010) (appellate review defers to juvenile court factual findings and reasonable inferences supporting termination)
- Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 282 (App. 2016) (a child’s interest in permanency may outweigh a parent’s uncertain struggle with drugs)
- Crystal E. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 241 Ariz. 576 (App. 2017) (failure to raise a best-interests challenge on appeal forfeits the argument)
- State v. Harvill, 106 Ariz. 386 (1970) (direct and circumstantial evidence carry similar probative value)