Lisa W. v. Dcs, K.W.
1 CA-JV 17-0299
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- In Aug. 2015 DCS took custody of K.W. (b. 2008) after reports of Mother’s substance abuse, domestic violence, and neglect; DCS filed a dependency petition.
- DCS provided reunification services (random UA testing via TASC, referrals to Terros for substance-abuse treatment, domestic-violence counseling, parenting services, psychological evaluation, transportation, and the possibility of a parent aide after 30 days sobriety).
- Mother moved between Arizona and Colorado, missed many UAs (closed out of TASC eight times), had multiple alcohol-positive tests, did not complete Arizona-ordered treatment, and failed to produce proof of Colorado treatment or domestic-violence class completion.
- DCS filed to terminate under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), (B)(8)(a), and (B)(8)(c). After a contested severance hearing the superior court found three statutory grounds satisfied and that termination was in the child’s best interests.
- On appeal Mother challenged (1) adequacy/diligence of DCS’s reunification efforts and (2) sufficiency of evidence that she could not remedy the circumstances and that termination served the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS made diligent efforts to provide reunification services | Mother: DCS failed to offer adequate services while she was in Colorado and failed to notify her to call into TASC or provide sufficient visitation | DCS: Provided numerous documented services, referrals, transport, and reasonable opportunities; Mother repeatedly failed to engage or complete services | Court: DCS made diligent, appropriate efforts; evidence supports that finding |
| Whether statutory ground § 8-533(B)(8)(c) (15 months in care) was met | Mother: She can remedy issues; DCS didn’t prove inability to remedy or future incapacity | DCS: Mother continued to use alcohol, relapse occurred months before trial, and she remained in a domestic-violence relationship; unlikely to be able to parent in near future | Court: Evidence supports inability to remedy conditions and substantial likelihood she won’t be capable of proper parental care soon; ground proven |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests | Mother: Termination not warranted; reunification possible | DCS: Child is adoptable; current placement meets child’s needs and offers permanency and safety from alcoholism/domestic violence | Court: Termination is in child’s best interests because adoptive placement meets needs and provides permanency and safety |
| Whether other termination grounds required separate analysis | Mother: Other statutory grounds should be considered or may alter outcome | DCS: Fifteen-month ground is sufficient to terminate; no need to reach others | Court: Because § 8-533(B)(8)(c) is supported, no need to address other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (standards for termination: clear-and-convincing for grounds; preponderance for best interests)
- Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (App. 2009) (appellate review views evidence favorably to sustaining juvenile court)
- Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (App. 2011) (juvenile court must consider availability and parent’s participation; DCS must make diligent efforts)
- Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174 (App. 2014) (parents should timely raise claims that services were inadequate)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (best-interests inquiry: affirmative benefit from termination or detriment from continuing relationship)
- Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 282 (App. 2011) (juvenile court may consider adoptability and whether placement meets child’s needs)