Mohammad K. v. Dcs
1 CA-JV 15-0401
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jul 28, 2016Background
- Father and Mother cohabited; they are biological parents of C.K. (b. Mar 2012), N.K. (b. Mar 2013), and M.K. (b. Dec 2014); Mother had three older children living with them.
- In Aug 2013, five‑month‑old N.K. was hospitalized with multiple fractures (elbow, forearm, ribs, leg) consistent with non‑accidental trauma; hospital notified DCS and children were removed.
- Older children reported corporal punishment with belts/sticks, displayed patterned marks/scars and fear behaviors (fear of belts), and described Father and Mother as disciplinarians.
- Medical testimony conflicted: parents’ expert suggested temporary bone fragility; a board‑certified child‑abuse pediatrician testified fractures were highly specific for abuse and testing ruled out other medical causes.
- Superior court found clear and convincing evidence of willful abuse or failure to protect (A.R.S. § 8‑533(B)(2)), severed Father’s parental rights to C.K., N.K., and M.K., and found severance was in the children’s best interests. Father appealed.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, deferring to trial court credibility findings and concluding evidence supported termination on abuse/failure‑to‑protect grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DCS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported severance under A.R.S. § 8‑533(B)(2) for willful abuse or failure to protect | Evidence did not establish cause of injuries; court and DCS improperly presumed Father was abuser or failed to protect | Medical and testimonial evidence showed fractures specific for abuse; Father was primary caregiver and older children implicated parents; marks and fear behaviors supported abuse/failure to protect | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported severance on abuse/failure‑to‑protect grounds |
| Whether conflicting medical opinions required reversal | Parents’ expert offered non‑abuse medical explanation (temporary bone fragility) and Father argued reasonable doubt remained | Trial court weighed expert conflict and credited child‑abuse pediatrician; follow‑up testing undermined medical alternative | Affirmed: court properly resolved expert conflict and credited evidence of abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 A.3d 279 (2005) (standard for termination: statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence; best interests by preponderance)
- Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (appellate review defers to trial court credibility and factual findings)
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (App. 2002) (deference to trial court on credibility when evidence conflicts)
- Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 76 (App. 2005) (abuse of one child can support termination as to other children)
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (affirmance need not address alternative statutory grounds when one affirmed)