Tomi M. v. Dcs
1 CA-JV 17-0237
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Mother (Tomi M.) has a long history of methamphetamine and marijuana use beginning in adolescence, multiple prior DCS involvements, and prior terminations of parental rights to three children.
- A.M. and L.M. were removed in September 2016 after reports and admissions of recent drug use; Department petitioned for dependency and later sought termination on chronic substance abuse (both children) and recurrent removal (A.M.).
- Mother participated intermittently in treatment (Terros, Community Bridges), missed many sessions, tested positive for multiple substances during the dependency, and did not complete recommended residential treatment because she stopped engaging in services.
- The Department provided reunification services including assessments, outpatient treatment referrals, drug testing, supervised visits, and a conditioned parent-aide referral (30 days sobriety); Department supervisors remained concerned about Mother’s sustained sobriety and parenting capacity.
- Juvenile court found clear-and-convincing evidence of chronic substance abuse (A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3)), that Mother could not discharge parental responsibilities, that DCS made diligent reunification efforts, and that termination was in the children’s best interests; Mother timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS made diligent reunification efforts under chronic-substance-abuse ground | DCS failed to provide full parent-aide services and inpatient treatment, so efforts were not diligent | DCS provided appropriate services, conditioned parent-aide on 30 days sobriety, and inpatient treatment required participation which Mother declined | Court: DCS made diligent efforts; Mother failed to engage, so requirement satisfied |
| Whether Mother’s chronic substance abuse supports termination (inability to discharge parental responsibilities and likely continuation) | Mother disputed sufficiency of evidence that she was unable to discharge responsibilities and that abuse would continue | DCS showed long history, multiple relapses, recent positive tests, and professional testimony that abuse likely to continue and impaired parenting | Court: Evidence supported chronic-substance-abuse ground; Mother unable to discharge responsibilities |
| Whether recurrent removal ground applied to A.M. | Mother attacked sufficiency generally | DCS showed A.M. returned and removed again within 18 months | Court: Recurrent removal ground proven for A.M. |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | Mother argued termination was unwarranted absent proven grounds | DCS argued children were in an adoptive, stable placement meeting needs and needed permanence free of parental substance abuse | Court: Termination was in children’s best interests; adoptive placement/need for stability supported decision |
Key Cases Cited
- E.R. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 56 (App. 2015) (standard of appellate review for termination orders)
- Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (App. 2002) (trial court best positioned to weigh credibility and evidence in termination proceedings)
- Bobby G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 219 Ariz. 506 (App. 2008) (appellate acceptance of juvenile court factual findings unless unsupported)
- Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373 (App. 2010) (elements of chronic-substance-abuse termination ground)
- Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 283 (App. 2016) (burden and elements for termination and consideration of prior substance-abuse history)
- Jennifer G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 450 (App. 2005) (requirement that DCS make diligent reunification efforts before seeking termination on chronic-substance-abuse ground)
- Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 154 (App. 2016) (scope of DCS’s duty to provide reasonable reunification services)
- Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174 (App. 2014) (best-interests inquiry for termination)
- Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1 (App. 2016) (factors relevant to adoption and best-interests determination)