From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Samantha M. v. Dep't of Child Safety

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Dec 18, 2014
No. 1 CA-JV14-0157 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2014)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-JV14-0157

12-18-2014

SAMANTHA M., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, S.M., Appellees.

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa By Nicholas Chapman-Hushek Counsel for Appellees David W. Bell, Attorney at Law, Mesa By David W. Bell Counsel for Appellant


NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(C), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Case No. JD22126
The Honorable Cari A. Harrison, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa
By Nicholas Chapman-Hushek
Counsel for Appellees
David W. Bell, Attorney at Law, Mesa
By David W. Bell
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. THOMPSON, Judge:

¶1 Samantha M. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to S.M. (Child). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We review the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court's factual findings. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 13, 53 P.3d 203, 207 (App. 2002).

¶2 Child, born in 2006, is the biological son of Mother and Leonard J. (Father). In June 2012, Mother reported to police that cars were following her, people watched her wherever she went, and her neighbors were placing bugs into holes in her apartment. Police found a loaded gun in the bathroom medicine cabinet, which Child had access to. Because Mother appeared to be mentally unstable, Child was taken into protective custody by ADES and placed with a maternal aunt. A few days later, Mother took Child from the aunt's residence without authorization, but she was quickly stopped and arrested for aggravated driving under the influence. Child was in the vehicle at the time of Mother's arrest, along with a loaded gun. Eventually, ADES placed Child with his paternal grandparents.

Father was not a party to the termination action.
--------

¶3 The juvenile court found Child dependent as to Mother, and ADES began providing numerous rehabilitative services to her, including: psychological and psychiatric evaluations, drug testing, individual counseling, transportation, parent aide, and supervised visitation. However, during a visit with Child, Mother became hostile and agitated at the sight of a pink folder Child had brought with him from school. Mother yelled and cursed in front of Child, ran throughout the office, and threatened to harm an ADES supervisor. ADES feared for the safety of Child and for the safety of the parent aides. The juvenile court soon suspended Mother's supervised visitation with child, and Mother thereafter refused to continue with any additional services unless visitation with Child resumed.

¶4 Mother's psychological evaluation reported that Mother had delusional disorder and depression, which posed a "serious risk for physical or psychological harm to [Child] or exposure to dangerous situations." The psychologist noted that Mother expressed thoughts of suicide and homicide, but denied having a plan to hurt anyone. A psychiatric evaluation of Mother likewise determined that she had a psychotic disorder, and that a "child under her care would be at risk for neglect, abuse, or death." The following year a second psychiatric evaluation opined that Mother's disorders would likely continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period of time, and that a child left in her care presented a risk of neglect. Despite her medical providers' diagnosis, Mother refused to take recommended and prescribed medication because she was fearful of the "harms and side effects that come with medication."

¶5 ADES filed a motion to terminate the parent-child relationship, alleging that Mother was unable to discharge her parental responsibilities due to mental illness and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the condition would continue for a prolonged indeterminate period; and Child had been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative period of fifteen months or longer. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 8-533(B)(3), (8)(c) (Supp. 2014). ADES also argued that termination would be in Child's best interests. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B). After a contested severance hearing, the juvenile court found that ADES had established the grounds for severance, and that termination was in the best interests of Child. Accordingly, the juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights to Child.

¶6 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235 (Supp. 2014), and 12-2101(A)(2) (Supp. 2013).

DISCUSSION

¶7 The juvenile court may terminate the parent-child relationship only upon finding that clear and convincing evidence demonstrates at least one statutory ground for severance and that a preponderance of the evidence shows severance is in the child's best interests. A.R.S. § 8-533(B); Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22, 110 P.3d 1013, 1018 (2005). On appeal, Mother argues only that the juvenile court erred in finding that termination of her parental rights was in Child's best interests.

¶8 To establish that termination is in a child's best interests, the record must contain proof that the child either would benefit from the severance or be harmed if the parental relationship continues. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 50, ¶ 19, 83 P.3d 43, 50 (App. 2004). Making a best interests determination requires the juvenile court to balance the fundamental liberty interest a parent has to control and care for his or her child and the child's fundamental interest in a "normal family home." Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 286, ¶ 34, 110 P.3d at 1020 (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759 (1982)). Relevant factors to the best interests determination include whether: "1) an adoptive placement is immediately available; 2) the existing placement is meeting the needs of the child; and 3) the [child is] adoptable." Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 379, ¶ 30, 231 P.3d 377, 383 (App. 2010) (citations omitted).

¶9 Mother argues that because ADES did not seek adoptive placement for Child, the juvenile court erred in considering the adoptability of Child in its best interestsdetermination. Mother further asserts that ADES presented no evidence that Child would benefit from severance or be harmed if Mother's parental rights were not terminated. We disagree. ADES need not show that it has a specific adoption plan before terminating parent's rights; ADES must show that the child is adoptable. See Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 5, 982 P.2d 1290, 1291 (App. 1998). Here, the ADES case manager testified that Child was adoptable, his paternal grandparents were willing to provide long-term care for him, they were meeting Child's needs, it was the least restrictive placement, and Child was progressing well in the care of his grandparents. See id. (stating the court may consider "whether an existing placement is meeting the needs of the child" when determining best interests).

¶10 Moreover, reasonable evidence supports the finding that Child would be harmed by the continuation of the parental relationship and benefited by severance and adoption. The ADES case manager testified that Mother repeatedly demonstrated unstable behavior, she had unresolved mental health issues, she refused to take recommended medication, and future contact with Mother posed a risk of harm to Child. Based on the preponderance of evidence, the juvenile court reasonably concluded that terminating Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of Child, and we will not disturb that finding on appeal. See Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d at 205 (stating that in termination proceedings, the juvenile court "is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and make appropriate findings").

CONCLUSION

¶11 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the juvenile court's order terminating Mother's parental rights.


Summaries of

Samantha M. v. Dep't of Child Safety

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Dec 18, 2014
No. 1 CA-JV14-0157 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2014)
Case details for

Samantha M. v. Dep't of Child Safety

Case Details

Full title:SAMANTHA M., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, S.M., Appellees.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Dec 18, 2014

Citations

No. 1 CA-JV14-0157 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2014)