Mario G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
227 Ariz. 282
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Father Mario G. appeals a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to Camila, born in 2009.
- Nine months before Camila’s birth, Father’s rights to his other child Alberto were terminated under § 8-533(B)(2) for abuse of Gabriela, a child in the same household.
- Gabriela suffered severe non-accidental injuries (including fractures and abdominal injury) in 2007–2008; ADES removed children and pursued dependency; Gabriela’s injuries were found non-accidental.
- Junior, a teenage family member, pled guilty to child abuse concerning Gabriela’s abdominal injuries; the court later severed Father’s and Mother’s rights as to Gabriela and Alberto in 2009.
- Camila was removed from the home in December 2009; ADES petitioned to terminate Father’s rights to Camila under § 8-533(B)(2) and to apply § 8-533(B)(10) if applicable; the court found an adequate nexus between the prior abuse and risk to Camila and granted severance on § 8-533(B)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 8-533(B)(2) permits severance for a child born after prior abuse | G. contends no temporal extension; statute lacks time limit. | ADES argues nexus can extend to a later-born child. | Yes; nexus permits severance for a new child. |
| Whether a nexus between prior abuse and risk to the later-born child is proven here | G. asserts no adequate nexus exists. | ADES shows ongoing risk and protective deficiency; past abuse endures as risk. | Adequate nexus supported; prior abuse sustains risk to Camila. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 76 (Ariz. 2005) (establishes nexus-based framework for § 8-533(B)(2) termination)
- C.B. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 879 So. 2d 82 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (recognizes termination based on prior abuse for a later-born child)
- In re Powers, 208 Mich.App. 582 (Mich. App. 1995) (anticipatory neglect/abuse extended to protect unborn child)
- In re J.C., 396 Ill. App. 3d 1050 (Ill. App. 2009) (derivative abuse may be justified when timely and proximate to risk)
- In re D.M., 58 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001) (consideration of past conduct to assess risk to future child)