Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs
1 CA-JV 16-0467
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- Parents (Father Paul V. and Mother Dana B.) have a long history of domestic violence; Father has substance-abuse (alcohol, methamphetamine) problems and Mother has serious mental-health diagnoses and medication noncompliance.
- Children L.V. (b. 2012) and R.V. (b. 2013) were removed from parental care in January 2014 after repeated incidents; DCS provided extensive reunification services and the children spent multiple placements.
- Father at times refused services, missed drug tests, tested positive for substances and alcohol, and drove intoxicated; Mother inconsistently engaged in treatment, missed visits, failed to secure stable housing, and remained in a violent relationship with Father.
- The juvenile court temporarily placed the children with Father in December 2015; after subsequent domestic violence and drug-relapse incidents the children were re-removed in early 2016.
- DCS moved to terminate parental rights (June 2016) on multiple statutory grounds including 15-month out-of-home placement; at the adjudication (Sept. 2016) the court terminated both parents’ rights (Father: chronic substance abuse, 9- and 15-month grounds; Mother: mental illness, 9- and 15-month grounds) and found DCS made diligent efforts and severance was in the children’s best interests.
- Parents appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying principally on the 15-month out-of-home placement ground for each parent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination on 15‑month out-of-home placement was supported (Father) | Father: court erred; he showed some remediation and the court wrongly found a substantial likelihood he would be unable to parent in the near future | DCS: Father’s ongoing substance abuse, missed tests, domestic violence, and refusal of services support the finding | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported finding Father unlikely to be capable of proper care in the near future; 15‑month ground met |
| Whether termination on 15‑month out-of-home placement was supported (Mother) | Mother: argued DCS failed to provide adequate reunification efforts and she could improve with additional evaluation | DCS: Mother had long-standing mental-health issues, inconsistent engagement, unsafe decisions and the case manager testified future improvement was unlikely | Affirmed — reasonable evidence showed Mother likely unable to parent in the near future; 15‑month ground met |
| Whether Mother was denied due process / effective assistance when counsel left before completion | Mother: counsel left and court continued; this denied due process and effective counsel | DCS: Mother and counsel did not object below; no showing of prejudice or fundamental error | Affirmed — claim waived for failure to object and insufficient showing of prejudice or fundamental error |
| Whether DCS made diligent efforts to provide reunification services to Mother | Mother: DCS should have provided a second psychological evaluation; failure undermines diligent-effort finding | DCS: Provided extensive mental-health and reunification services; additional evaluation would likely be futile given persistent risks | Affirmed — record supports that DCS made diligent efforts and further services would have been futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (discussing parents’ fundamental liberty interest and burden of proof for severance)
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (deference to juvenile court factfinding in severance cases)
- Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-6520, 157 Ariz. 238 (distinguishing standards for shorter and longer out-of-home placement termination grounds)
- Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (defining DCS’s obligation to provide reasonable reunification services)
- Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (standard for reviewing juvenile court termination orders)