Peter G. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 16-0306

In March 2015 Father and family members were involved in a violent encounter with police; two minor children were detained and placed in DCS custody.
The juvenile court later found the children dependent as to Father based on neglect and changed the case plan to severance and adoption.
DCS moved to terminate Father’s parental rights, alleging neglect (failure to provide basic necessities and failure to protect) and willful abuse/ failure to protect based on disclosures by the children.
At the severance hearing Father indicated he wanted to address the court about placement; the court said it would not decide placement that day but allowed a 15-minute unsworn statement if Father waived trial.
After colloquies with counsel and the court, Father entered a no-contest plea to termination and waived his right to a severance trial; the juvenile court found the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and terminated parental rights.
Father appealed solely arguing his waiver of the trial right was involuntary because he felt forced to waive trial to speak about placement; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father’s waiver of the severance trial was voluntary	Father: waiver involuntary because court induced waiver by linking permission to speak about placement to pleading no contest, creating a "catch-22"	DCS/Court: Father was informed of rights, had counsel, court repeatedly confirmed voluntary choice and still permitted an unsworn statement; no coercion	Court: Waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; affirmed termination

Timothy W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 232 (discussing review of no-contest pleas in termination proceedings)
Tina T. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 236 Ariz. 295 (guidance on analogies to criminal plea colloquies)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (waiver valid if made with awareness of relevant circumstances and likely consequences)
State v. Pac, 165 Ariz. 294 (involuntary plea requires lack of information of true importance)
State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477 (requirements for voluntariness of pleas)
State v. Rodriguez, 25 Ariz. App. 111 (plea valid where court conducted oral colloquy)
State v. Baker, 217 Ariz. 118 (waiver invalid where transcript lacked personal colloquy)
State v. Lerch, 107 Ariz. 529 (representation by counsel supports voluntariness of plea)
Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92 (standard for reviewing juvenile court termination orders)