Lali v. v. Dcs, A.C.
1 CA-JV 16-0023
Ariz. Ct. App.Jul 12, 2016Background
- Mother has an eight-year history of heroin and methamphetamine use with intermittent sobriety; she tested positive for drugs during pregnancy and Child showed withdrawal at birth in April 2014.
- DCS filed a dependency petition in May 2014; the juvenile court found Child dependent and DCS provided reunification services (treatment referrals, parent aides, counseling).
- Mother participated initially but relapsed after October 2014, failed to complete most services, missed or arrived intoxicated to visits, had not drug-tested since October 2014, and had not seen Child since January 2015.
- In March 2015 the State petitioned to terminate Mother’s parental rights; a contested severance hearing occurred in December 2015.
- DCS presented evidence that Child is thriving in a licensed foster home that is prepared to adopt, and that Child is adoptable and could be placed elsewhere if needed.
- The juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) (prolonged drug abuse) and (B)(8)(a),(c) (length of time in care), finding severance was in Child’s best interests because adoption would provide permanency and stability. Mother appealed only the best-interests findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court made the required best-interests findings before severing parental rights | The court failed to expressly find that termination would benefit Child or that continuation would harm Child and did not make specific factual findings about benefit/harm | DCS argued evidence showed Child is thriving, adoptable, and the foster family is ready to adopt—supporting a best-interests finding | Court held findings were sufficient: evidence of Child’s stability, adoptability, and available adoption supported best interests and affirmed severance |
Key Cases Cited
- Calvin B. v. Brittany B., 232 Ariz. 292 (App. 2013) (standard of review and viewing evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court)
- Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 76 (App. 2005) (termination requires a statutory ground and a best-interests finding)
- James S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 351 (App. 1999) (best-interests may be shown by benefit from termination or harm from continuation)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 547 (App. 2010) (preponderance standard for best-interests)
- Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373 (App. 2010) (relevant factors: availability of adoptive placement, whether placement meets child’s needs, and adoptability)
- Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174 (App. 2014) (stability and permanency support best-interests findings)