Samantha M. v. Dcs, M.G.
1 CA-JV 16-0266
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- M.G., born June 2013, was found dependent in May 2015; initial plan was reunification but later changed to severance and adoption.
- M.G. has lived with her paternal aunt since dependency proceedings began.
- Mother had twice-weekly supervised in-person visits until her June 2015 incarceration; since November 2015 Mother has been incarcerated at Perryville.
- After incarceration, M.G. showed behavioral decline and increased confusion about her permanency; caseworker linked some deterioration to intermittent contact with Mother.
- A psychologist recommended that Mother and Father not have visitation because contact "could be detrimental."
- The superior court limited visitation to weekly supervised telephone calls; Mother appealed, arguing infringement of her fundamental right to parent-child association.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court improperly restricted Mother’s visitation rights (fundamental right to parent–child association) | Mother: restriction infringes her constitutional right to companionate association and reasonable visitation despite incarceration | DCS: visitation may be limited if it would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health; evidence showed harm from contact and transport risks | Court: Affirmed — restriction to supervised telephonic visits was supported by evidence of child harm and expert opinion; trial court’s discretionary factual findings upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parents have a constitutional right to companionship and custody of their children)
- Michael M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 198 (App. 2002) (incarcerated parents retain reasonable visitation rights; visitation may be denied only where record shows it would harm the child)
- Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JD-5312, 178 Ariz. 372 (App. 1994) (courts may restrict visitation when it would seriously endanger a child’s well-being)
- Roberto F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 232 Ariz. 45 (App. 2013) (a trial court’s implicit factual findings about visitation harms can be upheld where supported by the record)