Yvonne L. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
227 Ariz. 415
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mother l appeals severance of parental rights to E.L., L.L., and D.L. in ICWA-governed proceedings with Tohono O'Odham Nation intervening.
- CPS/ADES filed dependency due to Mother's substance abuse; prior dependency resolved with temporary custody returned in 2007.
- In 2008–2009, Mother failed to consistently engage in drug treatment, parenting services, and counseling; incarceration interrupted services.
- Bonding and parenting assessments indicated risks to children; expert found limited likelihood of successful reintegration.
- February 2010 severance trial concluded, court found grounds for termination and that ADES made active efforts under ICWA, with guardianship/adoption in children's best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of proof applies to ICWA 'active efforts' finding? | Mother argues for 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. | ADES argues no fixed federal standard; state may use clear and convincing. | Clear and convincing evidence required for 'active efforts' under ICWA. |
| Did ADES make 'active efforts' to prevent breakup of the Indian family? | Mother contends efforts were insufficient. | ADES presented substantial reunification services and efforts. | Yes; substantial evidence supports active efforts, albeit unsuccessful. |
| Whether the court properly deviated from ICWA placement preferences for adoption. | Mother argues ICWA preferences should guide guardianship/adoption. | Court found good cause to deviate; foster placements continued. | Court acted within discretion; good cause to deviate established. |
| Whether placement with half-sister N. was preferable under ICWA? | Mother advocates placement with N.; Nation had mixed views. | N. posed concerns about willingness and capacity; not a suitable guardian. | No error; placement with N. not required; court could maintain current foster placements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valerie M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 198 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. 2009) (limits ICWA burden distinctions and standard questions; active efforts standard varies by state)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 110 P.3d 1013 (Ariz. 2005) (established clear-and-convincing standard for termination grounds; best interests standard separate)
- In re Adoption of Hannah S., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 605 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (adopts clear-and-convincing standard for 'active efforts' in ICWA context)
- In re C.A.V., 787 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa App. 2010) (state ICWA-like framework; supports clear-and-convincing for 'active efforts')
- In re JL, 770 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. 2009) (recognizes state flexibility in burden for 'active efforts' under ICWA)