Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
230 Ariz. 236
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Father appeals a severance termination of parental rights involving four children: I.M., L.M., R.M., E.T.
- ADES filed petitions for dependency and later for severance based on abuse allegations against Father
- Children were taken into custody and placed with maternal grandparents; ADES later filed for E.T. under separate petition
- GAL questioned Father about a juvenile adjudication for sexual conduct with a minor; court allowed questioning
- Court found willful abuse and best interests supported termination; ADES prepared proposed findings after deadline
- Appellate court affirmed termination, holding admissibility of juvenile record harmless and findings sufficiently specific under Rule 66(F)(2)(a)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of juvenile record evidence | Father argues Rule 609 restrictions were violated | Father waived grounds; evidence was not prejudicial given abundant other evidence | No reversible error; prejudice not shown; waiver/fundamental error analysis applied |
| Sufficiency and specificity of findings under Rule 66(F)(2)(a) | Findings were general, not detailing elicited facts | Findings, though concise, were enough to show willful abuse and best interests | Findings were sufficiently specific to allow review; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process in termination proceedings; fundamental rights balancing)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (state interest in child welfare balanced against parental rights)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (Ariz. 2005) (due process safeguards in severance proceedings)
- Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 804 P.2d 730 (Ariz. 1990) (necessity of specifying how child benefits or is harmed by severance (cited for standard))