Melissa D. v. Dcs
1 CA-JV 15-0420
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- In April 2014 the Department of Child Safety removed two children (H.D. and K.D.) after reports that Mother sought unnecessary medical treatments and disclosed confidential case information online.
- Over a year of services preceded a consolidated dependency and severance trial; after 12 days the superior court found the children dependent, and that Mother abused and neglected them by pursuing excessive/unverified medical interventions (clear and convincing evidence).
- Trial evidence showed numerous medical visits, hospitalizations, feeding tubes, wheelchairs, and one expert concluded the children were victims of Factitious Disorder (Munchausen by proxy).
- The court found the children were healthier in DCS custody (weight normalization, less medical intervention) and that severance was in their best interests (preponderance standard).
- Mother proceeded pro per, repeatedly violated confidentiality orders by posting case details online, refused supervised access to records during trial, waived presence for parts of trial, and declined to cooperate with appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to jury trial | Mother claimed entitlement to jury for severance | No constitutional or statutory right to jury in severance | Denied — no jury right (Monica C.; Reinstein) |
| Access to / sealing of records | Court unlawfully restricted access and should make records public | Restrictions necessary to protect children after Mother published confidential info | Denied — supervised access and closures were appropriate to protect privacy |
| Exclusion of witnesses/evidence (including child testimony) | Court improperly excluded J.D. and K.D., and excluded exhibits | Court properly limited testimony/exhibits for best interests, procedure, and evidentiary rules; K.D.’s testimony would harm child | Denied — rulings within discretion; child testimony may be limited by best-interests standard (K.D. v. Hoffman) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for abuse/neglect and best interests | Evidence and medical diagnoses favored Mother; Department destroyed evidence | Record shows clear and convincing proof of medical abuse/Factitious Disorder and children benefit from severance | Affirmed — ample evidence of abuse/neglect and severance in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Monica C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 89 (App. 2005) (no constitutional right to jury in severance)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Reinstein, 214 Ariz. 209 (App. 2007) (statutory right to jury trial in severance eliminated)
- K.D. v. Hoffman, 238 Ariz. 278 (App. 2015) (child’s testimony in severance can be limited by best-interests analysis)
- State v. Torres, 208 Ariz. 340 (App. 2004) (factors for assessing motions to replace counsel)
- Dep’t of Child Safety v. Beene, 235 Ariz. 300 (App. 2014) (parents in severance proceedings lack absolute confrontation rights; balance with child’s best interests)
- Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 96 (App. 2016) (burdens of proof in severance: clear and convincing for statutory grounds; preponderance for best interests)