Tyren T., Brittany H. v. Dcs
1 CA-JV 16-0091
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- Parents (Tyren T. and Brittany H.) have four children including premature twins with significant medical needs; one child (R.T.) was hospitalized Aug 2015 for failure to thrive and DCS received a neglect report.
- DCS took R.T. into custody; Parents initially concealed the other three children for five weeks, later surrendering them; all children placed with maternal grandparents and then in foster care for medical needs.
- DCS filed a dependency petition alleging medical neglect and Mother’s untreated mental-health issues; DCS proposed reunification services and concurrent plan of severance/adoption for the younger three.
- Psychological evaluation of Mother indicated anxiety/depression and concerns about her presentation of victimization; Mother disputed some reported history and had limited counseling participation at hearing.
- At the two-day adjudication hearing (Jan 2016), Parents testified; Father admitted limited involvement with medical care and reliance on Mother; the juvenile court found DCS proved the petition by a preponderance and adjudicated the children dependent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court’s minute entry violated rule requiring specific factual findings | Parents: court erred by failing to make specific findings, impairing appellate review | DCS: objection waived; issue not raised below so should be forfeited | Court: Parents waived; reviewed for fundamental error and found none; admonished strict compliance with rule 55(E) going forward |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support dependency based on medical neglect | Father: insufficient evidence that parents were unwilling or unable to provide proper medical care | DCS: record shows medical neglect (failure to treat, concealment, disputed compliance) and mother’s mental-health issues | Court: affirmed — reasonable evidence supported finding of dependency due to inability/unwillingness to provide effective medical care |
| Whether failure to raise findings error below requires reversal as extraordinary/fundamental error | Parents: fundamental error argument on appeal | DCS: trial court and counsel should have chance to correct defects; no extraordinary circumstances | Court: absent extraordinary circumstances, appellate review refused; error not fundamental here and no prejudice shown |
| Relevance of Mother's mental health and Father's claimed reliance on Mother to dependency determination | Father: his reliance on Mother and employment limited his involvement; Mother: denies some prior statements and minimized need for services | DCS: Mother’s mental-health diagnosis and limited engagement raised safety concerns; Father’s lack of medical record review relevant to capability | Court: Mother’s mental-health and Father’s deference supported conclusion parents could not assure children’s medical needs; contributed to dependency finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445 (App. 2007) (failure to raise lack of findings below generally forfeits appellate review)
- Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174 (App. 2014) (timeliness and raising issues below promote children’s best interests)
- Joshua J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 417 (App. 2012) (prompt adjudication advances child stability and best interests)
- Antonio P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 402 (App. 2008) (juvenile court’s primary consideration is child’s best interest)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Lee, 228 Ariz. 150 (App. 2011) (overarching purpose is protecting child’s health and safety)
- Trantor v. Fredrikson, 179 Ariz. 299 (1994) (trial court should be given opportunity to correct asserted defects; extraordinary errors required to excuse waiver)
- Monica C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 89 (App. 2005) (when not objected to below, review of procedural rule noncompliance is for fundamental error)
- Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 236 (App. 2012) (importance of express findings to aid appellate review and provide baseline for measuring parental progress)
- Shella H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47 (App. 2016) (adjudication considers circumstances at time of hearing)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (trial court as factfinder entitled to weigh evidence and assess credibility)
- Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 484 (App. 2015) (dependency adjudication reviewed for abuse of discretion; accept reasonable evidence)
- Reid v. Reid, 222 Ariz. 204 (App. 2009) (findings provide baseline for future changed-circumstances inquiries)