Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
232 Ariz. 45
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- The Arizona trial court terminated Father's parental rights to L.F. and I.A on grounds of abandonment and 15 months time-in-care.
- The appellate court vacated the termination due to insufficient evidence and error in the abandonment theory being disclosed late in trial.
- Foster Parents intervened in the dependency proceeding; the court granted permissive intervention and considered Bechtel factors in evaluating best interests.
- The dependency case had focused on reunification; after intervention, the case shifted toward severance and adoption by Foster Parents.
- Abandonment was amended on day four of a five-day trial; Father was not given timely notice or opportunity to defend against this new theory.
- The court ultimately vacated the Father’s severance judgment, while noting the Foster Parents’ severance petition against the Father was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foster Parents' intervention was proper | Father argues intervention was improper and prejudicial; Foster Parents were participants, not parties. | Foster Parents rely on Rule 24 and Bechtel factors to support intervention. | No abuse of discretion; Bechtel factors weigh in favor, but prejudice to Father considered. |
| Whether abandonment grounds were properly notice and supported | State argued abandonment supported severance; amendment timely and proper. | Foster Parents contended timely amendment; Father had time to respond. | Abandonment amendment was untimely and prejudicial; due process violation vacates this ground |
| Whether the 15 months time-in-care ground is supported | State asserted 15-month placement and diligent reunification efforts existed. | Diligent efforts questioned; Father's remedial capacity and future prospects considered. | Insufficient evidence to prove 15 months time-in-care criteria; vacate this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Bechtel v. Rose, 150 Ariz. 68 (Ariz. 1986) (grandparents may intervene in dependency cases to preserve family integrity)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (state interest in permanency requires clear evidence of inability to parent)
- Allen v. Chon-Lopez, 214 Ariz. 361 (Ariz. 2007) (Bechtel factors applied to intervention and best interests)
- Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185 (Ariz. 1999) (preservation of parental rights requires substantial likelihood of improved parental care)
- Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (Ariz. 2011) (burden on agency to prove lack of capable parenting in near future)
- In re Marriage of Downing, 265 P.3d 1097 (Ariz. 2011) (legislative provisions and rights of guardians in family matters)
- State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Valentine, 190 Ariz. 107 (Ariz. 1997) (due process and error preservation standards in dependency cases)