Maurice N. v. Dcs, M.N.
1 CA-JV 16-0328
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Father (Maurice N.) was located in California after a dependency petition for his child; paternity confirmed May 2015. Child’s meconium tested positive for marijuana at birth; mother had ongoing substance issues and child was placed with relatives.
- DCS initially offered reunification services (paternity testing, drug testing, visitation, parent-aide services, ICPC home study) and informed Father of required steps for reunification (negative drug test, regular contact, proof of employment/housing).
- Father missed multiple paternity and urinalysis tests, visited the child only twice during the dependency, failed to provide proof of stable housing or employment, and continued marijuana use without a valid card; a hair test in Feb 2016 was negative.
- DCS stopped visitation after a psychological consult found further visits not in the child’s best interest; DCS could not pursue ICPC placement due to Father’s criminal record and lack of documentation.
- Juvenile court terminated Father’s parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(b) (six months’ time-in-care) finding DCS made diligent efforts and Father substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy the circumstances; best interest finding was uncontested on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under § 8-533(B)(8)(b) is supported by clear and convincing evidence | Father argued DCS did not cause or contribute to the circumstances and that services/visits were improperly withheld | DCS argued it made diligent efforts, offered services, and Father substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy circumstances (missed tests/visits,no proof of housing/employment) | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports termination under six months’ time-in-care |
| Whether DCS made a diligent effort to provide reunification services | Father contended DCS ignored Foster Care Review Board recommendation and failed to assist with visits | DCS said it offered multiple services for >1 year, was flexible with scheduling, and relied on a psychologist’s recommendation to stop visits | Affirmed: DCS made diligent efforts; FCRB recommendation was advisory and DCS reasonably relied on expert consultation |
| Whether Father’s sporadic participation precludes finding "substantial neglect or willful refusal" | Father pointed to some late participation (hair test, two visits) and claimed barriers to testing/transportation | DCS emphasized repeated missed tests, minimal contact, and inadequate proof of stability; sporadic, aborted attempts are insufficient | Affirmed: sporadic attempts do not preclude finding substantial neglect or willful refusal |
| Best interest of the child | Father did not contest best interest; argued factors favored reunification potential | DCS noted child bonded with prospective adoptive relative, child’s needs met, and permanency benefits | Court found severance in child’s best interest; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (recognizes parental liberty interest and termination standards)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due process requires clear and convincing evidence for termination)
- Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 571 (sporadic attempts can support "substantial neglect")
- Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185 (DCS need not pursue futile services; should use measures with reasonable prospect of success)
- Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (defines "diligent effort" to provide reunification services)
- Donald W. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 215 Ariz. 199 (lack of contact and visitation supports substantial neglect finding)
- Oscar O. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 209 Ariz. 332 (juvenile court’s role in weighing evidence and best-interest analysis)