Leanna S. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 16-0459

Background

In 2010 ADES (now DCS) sought termination of Leanna S.’s parental rights to daughters J.S. and C.R.; in January 2012 the juvenile court terminated rights as to J.S. but not C.R. (who neared 18).
In March 2015 Leanna filed a complaint with the Board of Psychologist Examiners against psychologist Dr. Brenda Bursch, alleging unauthorized practice of medicine (Munchausen-by-proxy diagnosis) and that Bursch committed perjury at the 2011 termination hearing by mischaracterizing instructions given to therapist Marina Greco.
The Board of Psychologist Examiners refused to process Leanna’s complaint citing A.R.S. § 32-2081(B) procedural requirements (court referral requirement for complaints arising from judicially ordered evaluations) as then in effect.
Leanna filed a May 2016 motion in the closed juvenile court seeking a finding of perjury and referral of Bursch to the Board; she also challenged the Board of Behavioral Health’s June 2016 dismissal of her complaint against Greco and sought judicial review (administrative appeal), which she moved to consolidate with the juvenile file.
The juvenile court struck Leanna’s perjury motion (finding lack of jurisdiction to reopen terminated dependency proceedings), alternatively found the motion untimely and insufficiently supported, and dismissed the administrative appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Leanna was not a party before the Board and the dismissal was not a reviewable final decision.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the juvenile court did have jurisdiction to consider extrinsic fraud/perjury claims but correctly struck Leanna’s motion as untimely and her administrative appeal as not reviewable under the Administrative Review Act.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juvenile court had jurisdiction to consider Leanna’s perjury motion years after termination	Juvenile court retained power to investigate fraud on the court and discipline experts to protect judicial integrity	DCS/Bursch: juvenile court’s jurisdiction terminated when C.R. turned 18, so court had no power to act	Court: juvenile court did have jurisdiction to hear extrinsic-fraud (fraud-on-court) allegations but still properly struck the motion for other reasons
Whether A.R.S. § 32-2081(B) required court referral before Board could consider complaint against Bursch	Leanna contended court should verify perjury and refer complaint to Board	Respondents argued Bursch was not court-appointed so § 32-2081(B) did not apply	Held: § 32-2081(B) inapplicable because Bursch was not court-appointed; court need not refer complaint under that statute
Whether perjury motion was timely	Leanna waited four years and argued relief was warranted despite delay	Respondents asserted time to attack judgment for extrinsic fraud had passed; motion untimely	Held: motion untimely—rule 46(E) three-month benchmark for extrinsic fraud meant Leanna’s four-year delay was too long
Whether juvenile court had jurisdiction to review Board of Behavioral Health’s dismissal of complaint against Greco	Leanna argued she was a party to the Board proceeding and dismissal was reviewable	Board/Greco argued Leanna was not a party and dismissal was a discretionary, non-final action not subject to ARA review	Held: Leanna was not a party to the administrative proceeding and the dismissal did not affect her legal rights/duties/privileges; dismissal not reviewable under the ARA, so appeal dismissed

Key Cases Cited

David S. v. Audilio S., 201 Ariz. 134 (discusses de novo review of juvenile court jurisdiction)
McNeil v. Hoskyns, 236 Ariz. 173 (court may set aside judgments obtained by extrinsic fraud)
Bolser Enters., Inc. v. Ariz. Registrar of Contractors, 213 Ariz. 110 (administrative-review jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
Twin Peaks Const. Inc. of Nevada v. Weatherguard Metal Const., Inc., 214 Ariz. 476 (complainant to an agency is not necessarily a party to the administrative proceeding)
Murphy v. Bd. of Med. Health Exam’rs of State of Ariz., 190 Ariz. 441 (advisory letters or nondisciplinary dispositions are not final reviewable decisions under the ARA)
Ariz. Physicians IPA, Inc. v. W. Ariz. Reg’l Med. Ctr., 228 Ariz. 112 (scope of ARA limited to final administrative decisions)