Philip P., Katherine J. v. Dcs, V.P.
1 CA-JV 16-0350
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- In Feb. 2015, DCS received a report that Child was unsupervised in a neighbor’s apartment and removed from parents due to meth exposure.
- DCS filed a petition in March 2015 alleging dependence as to both parents on substance abuse and neglect; juvenile court adjudicated dependency and ordered reunification and concurrent severance/adoption.
- Mother admitted long-term methamphetamine use plus other substances; engaged in limited treatment and inconsistent urinalysis, with relapses in 2015.
- Father admitted methamphetamine and marijuana use; participated inconsistently in treatment and testing, with positive meth results in March 2015 and limited engagement thereafter.
- In January 2016 the court changed the plan to severance; DCS moved to sever parental rights; bonding and testing data showed ongoing concerns; therapeutic visitation was delayed but later implemented; parents largely disengaged from services.
- At trial in August 2016, the court found all statutory grounds for severance by clear and convincing evidence and concluded severance was in Child’s best interests; Child was adoptable and in an adoptive placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DCS diligently provided reunification services to Mother | Mother argues DCS failed to provide meaningful services | DCS contends it provided time and opportunity to participate in programs | DCS diligence supported; no error |
| Best interests given notes from therapeutic visitation not admitted | Mother asserts notes would show progress in parenting | Court relied on overall evidence of safety and permanency | Notes not necessary; best interests supported |
| Child would benefit from severance of Father’s rights (or be harmed by continuing) | Father contends child already suffered from separation and bonding remains | DCS shows continued risk and absence of adequate parenting | Best interests supported, severance affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (diligent efforts required for reunification when grounds exist)
- Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348 (App. 1994) (time-to-participate in programs appropriate for reunification)
- Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185 (App. 1999) (reunification services must be meaningful; not all services required)
- Jennifer G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 450 (App. 2005) (cited regarding reunification and services)
- Oscar O. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (best interests and permanency considerations in severance)
- Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 345 (App. 2013) (permanency planning and best interests framework)
- James S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 351 (App. 1998) (weight given to court’s credibility determinations)