Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R.
230 Ariz. 96
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Xavier R. and Athena R. were taken into ADES custody in Oct 2010 after their mother was reported missing; Joseph R. has been incarcerated since then.
- The children were adjudicated dependent in Dec 2010; in Apr 2011 ADES moved to terminate Joseph's parental rights on abandonment grounds and, as to Athena, for length of time in care.
- A contested severance hearing followed; the juvenile court found abandonment by clear and convincing evidence but denied termination because severance was not in the children's best interests.
- ADES appealed asserting error in the best-interests ruling; the children argued the court should affirm termination if statutory grounds were proven and best interests weighed in their favor.
- Rule 104(B) notice of appeal was challenged for two very young children; the court ultimately held the notice sufficient because counsel may avow on behalf of very young clients in juvenile matters.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the record supported the best-interests findings and that the notice of appeal was properly filed under Rule 104(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severance was in the children's best interests. | ADES contends severance is supported by evidence. | Children argue best interests favor termination due to therapy gains and adoptive placement. | Yes; court affirmed, finding clear and convincing grounds and that best interests supported non-termination. |
| Whether the notice of appeal was properly filed given the minors' ages. | ADES/children argue proper compliance with Rule 104(B) is required. | Court should not strike notice; counsel may file on behalf of very young children. | Yes; notice of appeal was sufficient and not stricken. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mohajerin, 226 Ariz. 103 (Ariz. 2010) (sua sponte jurisdiction and rule interpretation guidance)
- In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78151-S, 119 Ariz. 320 (Ariz. 1978) (appellate review of juvenile orders; context for appealability)
- In re Yavapai Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-8545, 140 Ariz. 10 (Ariz. 1984) (attorney's role in juvenile actions; guardian ad litem considerations)
- In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 1990) (best interests consideration in severance proceedings)
- Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376 (Ariz. 1998) (standard of review for severance rulings; ”clearly erroneous” findings not to be disturbed)