Stella H. v. Dcs, J.H.
1 CA-JV 17-0210
Ariz. Ct. App.Dec 14, 2017Background
- Child became dependent two days after birth (Mar 2013) due to Mother’s incarceration for drug-related charges; reunification services began after Mother’s release.
- DCS provided repeated services (supervised visits, parent aide, counseling, substance-abuse evaluation/treatment, frequent drug testing) over ~4 years; Mother’s participation was sporadic.
- DCS filed an initial severance motion (Oct 2014); juvenile court denied it after Mother showed months of sobriety and granted more time; mother relapsed Dec 2015.
- DCS filed a second severance motion (Sept 2016) alleging chronic substance abuse and out-of-home placement 15+ months; after a three-day hearing the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights on chronic-substance-abuse grounds (A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3)).
- Mother appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence (including that DCS relied on “stale” expert testimony) and inadequate findings about DCS’s reunification efforts; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination for chronic substance abuse | Court relied on stale expert testimony; insufficient evidence that Mother’s condition will continue | Court considered multiple exhibits, recent positive drug tests, history of relapse, and expert opinion updated to poor prognosis | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports termination under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) |
| Whether temporary sobriety outweighs long-term history | Mother: periods of abstinence show improvement and rebut prognosis of prolonged impairment | DCS: temporary abstinence does not overcome long history of relapse and inability to remain sober during dependency | Affirmed: temporary abstinence does not outweigh long history; child’s need for permanency controls |
| Whether juvenile court made adequate factual findings on DCS’s reunification efforts | Mother: findings were insufficient as to diligent efforts on each severance ground | DCS: court expressly found DCS made diligent efforts and the record supports that finding | Affirmed: court made adequate findings and reasonable evidence supports them |
Key Cases Cited
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (standard for statutory grounds and burden of proof in severance cases)
- Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373 (App. 2010) (chronic substance abuse definition and weight of temporary abstinence)
- Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 282 (App. 2016) (evidence to establish reasonable grounds that condition will continue)
- Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (standard of review and presumption that necessary findings were made if evidence supports order)
- Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 236 (App. 2012) (purpose of written findings in severance proceedings)
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (App. 2002) (if any statutory ground is supported, court need not address others)