Tasha T. v. Dcs, E.T.
1 CA-JV 17-0068
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- Mother (Tasha T.) with a long history of substance abuse gave birth in Aug. 2015; the child was taken into DCS custody and later adjudicated dependent. Mother had multiple prior children whose rights had been severed.
- DCS provided services (substance treatment, UA testing, supervised visitation, parenting classes, therapy); Mother inconsistently participated and repeatedly tested positive for drugs.
- In late 2016 the juvenile court found Mother substantially and willfully noncompliant, ordered services discontinued, and set an initial severance hearing. Mother was given Form 3 notice requiring attendance.
- Mother moved to appear telephonically because she alleged she was in Georgia for another hearing; the court granted telephonic appearance but Mother did not appear in person or by phone at the January 4, 2017 hearing.
- DCS presented testimony (including that Mother said she had traveled to Georgia to avoid DCS taking a later child into care); the juvenile court found no good cause for nonappearance, proceeded in Mother’s absence, and terminated her parental rights for chronic substance abuse.
- Mother’s motion for reconsideration was denied; she appealed, challenging (1) the no-good-cause finding for nonappearance and denial of reconsideration, (2) admission of testimony about her Georgia trip, and (3) sufficiency of statutory grounds and best-interest findings. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in finding Mother failed to appear without good cause | Mother said she faced two closely scheduled out-of-state hearings and attempted to attend both; nonappearance was excusable neglect | Mother had notice (Form 3), was permitted telephonic appearance but did not appear or provide reliable proof of attempts; evidence showed Georgia hearing was after the Arizona hearing | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion — no good cause shown |
| Whether denial of reconsideration without an evidentiary hearing was error | Mother argued denial prevented her from presenting a meritorious defense and establishing excusable neglect | Mother failed to articulate a meritorious defense in her motion; court need not hold an evidentiary hearing when proffered facts lack probative value | Affirmed: denial was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether admission of testimony about Mother’s prior Georgia trip was improper | Mother contended the testimony was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, character evidence, and violated disclosure/due process rules | Testimony was relevant to Mother’s whereabouts and motive for nonappearance (good-cause inquiry); Mother objected only on relevancy below | Affirmed: admission not an abuse of discretion; other objections waived absent fundamental error |
| Whether DCS proved statutory grounds for severance and that termination was in the child’s best interest | Mother contested sufficiency of evidence on substance-abuse and placement grounds and best-interest conclusion | Record showed repeated positive drug tests, failure to engage in treatment/testing, and foster placement meeting child’s needs with adoptive willingness | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported chronic substance-abuse ground and best-interest finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Adrian E. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 215 Ariz. 96 (discussing standard of review for good-cause findings)
- Christy A. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 299 (defining good-cause elements for failure-to-appear)
- Richas v. Superior Court, 133 Ariz. 512 (adopting mistake/inadvertence/neglect and meritorious-defense test)
- Brake Masters Sys., Inc. v. Gabbay, 206 Ariz. 360 (no evidentiary hearing required when facts proffered lack probative value)
- Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 236 (waiver of appellate objections not raised below; fundamental-error doctrine in severance cases)
- Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376 (best-interest factors in severance)
- Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 239 Ariz. 184 (standard of review for severance orders)