Opinion
No. 2 CA-JV 2020-0079
01-29-2021
CIERA H., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY AND A.H., Appellees.
COUNSEL Ciera H., Tucson In Propria Persona Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General By Dawn R. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety Pima County Office of Children's Counsel, Tucson By William Jenney Counsel for Minor
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 103(G).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. JD20150661
The Honorable Kathleen Quigley, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Ciera H., Tucson
In Propria Persona
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
By Dawn R. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
Pima County Office of Children's Counsel, Tucson
By William Jenney
Counsel for Minor
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
STARING, Vice Chief Judge:
¶1 Ciera H. challenges the juvenile court's order of July 31, 2020, terminating her parental rights to her child, A.H., born August 2016, on grounds of the child having been in court-ordered, out-of-home care for more than fifteen months. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). On appeal, Ciera asserts she "was not given enough time to establish work and independent living." We affirm.
¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court's order. Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 205, ¶ 2 (App. 2008). A.H. was taken into the custody of the Department of Child Safety (DCS) in August 2018 based on safety concerns, including Ciera's mental-health issues and substance abuse. A.H. was later placed with his great-aunt and great-uncle, and Ciera was offered various services, including Family Drug Court, substance-abuse testing and treatment, relapse prevention, individual therapy, parenting classes, and supervised visitation. A.H. was adjudicated dependent in October 2018.
¶3 DCS filed a motion for termination of Ciera's parental rights in March 2020. At the severance hearing, Ciera's DCS Specialist testified that as a result of her case plan Ciera had maintained sobriety, but "continue[d] to have a difficult time maintaining her mental health" and had been unable "to maintain employment or housing." As a result, she testified that A.H. could not be safely placed with Ciera, nor could he be "in the near future." The specialist also testified that A.H.'s placement was meeting his needs and was willing to adopt him. The juvenile court found that Ciera would "not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near future," that DCS had established the time-in-care ground "by clear and convincing evidence," and that severance was in A.H.'s best interest.
¶4 On appeal, Ciera's attorney filed a notice stating that he had reviewed the record and found no "non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal." This court granted counsel's additional motion to allow a pro se brief. In
her pro se filing—a letter to this court—Ciera asks for "more time to finish . . . therapy and to establish safe living for" A.H. and herself. She refers this court to "all of the information . . . on file through the courts" and argues she "was not given enough time to establish work and independent living."
¶5 To sever a parent's rights, the juvenile court must find there is clear and convincing evidence to support at least one of the statutory grounds for termination, and that a preponderance of the evidence establishes severing the parent's rights is in the child's best interests. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, ¶¶ 32, 41 (2005). We do not reweigh the evidence on appeal; rather, we defer to the court's factual findings because, as the trier of fact, that court "is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts." Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, ¶ 4 (App. 2004). Consequently, we will affirm the order if reasonable evidence supports the factual findings upon which the order is based. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). Ciera's letter, which presents no meaningful legal argument, at most constitutes a request for this court to reweigh the evidence presented to the juvenile court, which we will not do. See Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, ¶ 4. And as outlined above, reasonable evidence supports the court's decision. See Jesus M., 203 Ariz. 278, ¶ 4.
¶6 We affirm the juvenile court's order terminating Ciera's parental rights.