Shawanee S. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
234 Ariz. 174
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In Jan 2012 CPS removed four young daughters from Mother after incidents including domestic violence (Mother cut her boyfriend with a knife), neglect, medical issues among the children, and an allegation one child had been sexually abused.
- Juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent, adopted family reunification and a concurrent severance/adoption plan, and ordered services (psychological evaluation, individual counseling, parent aide services, supervised visitation, transportation).
- Mother completed some individual counseling but missed many visits, refused recommended substance-abuse treatment and parent-aide participation, resumed living with an alleged abuser to avoid homelessness, and was removed from the parent-aide program for nonattendance.
- Guardian ad litem moved to terminate under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(a) (children in out-of-home placement ≥9 months and parent substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy causes), ADES joined, and a contested severance hearing was held in June 2013.
- Juvenile court found statutory grounds proven, concluded ADES had made more than diligent efforts to provide appropriate reunification services, found termination was in the children’s best interests, and terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | ADES’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother may challenge on appeal that ADES failed to make a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services | ADES should have provided additional services (e.g., a second psychological evaluation) and more time; the services were inadequate | Mother failed to object in juvenile court to services; juvenile court repeatedly found ADES made reasonable/diligent efforts; issue waived | Court held Mother waived the claim by failing to timely object in juvenile court and affirmed the diligent-effort finding |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Termination not necessary; Mother argued services/efforts could succeed (implicitly) | ADES and caseworker argued children suffered trauma, regressed after visits, and are thriving in adoptive placements — permanency needed | Court found termination served the children’s best interests given instability, harm after visits, and current adoptive placements; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (clarifies proof standards for termination and best-interests review)
- Kimu P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 39 (parental waiver of appellate issues when not raised below)
- Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445 (waiver where parent failed to object to court’s reasonable-efforts findings)
- Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (noting parent may waive challenge to adequacy of reunification efforts if not raised below)
- Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185 (constitutional right to reunification services when ADES seeks termination for mental illness)
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (juvenile court credibility role in termination proceedings)
- Bobby G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 219 Ariz. 506 (standard for best-interests determination)
- Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376 (abuse-of-discretion standard for termination findings)
- State v. Georgeoff, 163 Ariz. 434 (waiver and forfeiture of rights doctrine)
- In re Eddie O., 227 Ariz. 99 (constitutional rights may be forfeited or waived through conduct)