From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anessa M. v. Dep't of Child Safety

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Apr 1, 2021
No. 1 CA-JV 20-0249 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2021)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0249

04-01-2021

ANESSA M., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, A.M., A.M., Appellees.

COUNSEL Maricopa County Legal Defender's Office, Phoenix By Jamie R. Heller Counsel for Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Emily M. Stokes Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety


NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Nos. JD38531, JS20251
The Honorable Lori Horn Bustamante, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Legal Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Jamie R. Heller
Counsel for Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Emily M. Stokes
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined. WILLIAMS, Judge:

¶1 Anessa M. ("Mother") appeals the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her children. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Aldo P. ("Father") are the parents of two children, born in 2017 and 2019, whom we refer to as Jordan and Jaime, respectively. In 2019, the Department of Child Safety ("DCS") was notified that three-month-old Jaime was admitted to the hospital after his parents found him unresponsive. Jaime was treated for injuries, including fractures to his skull, femur and ribs, he had multiple hematomas, bruising on his face and chest, and a detached retina. Hospital professionals noted that Jaime appeared malnourished and that injuries were at different stages of healing, indicating earlier instances of physical abuse or trauma. At the time, Jordan, who was twenty-two months old, was evaluated but no injuries were identified. DCS took temporary custody of both children.

Father's rights to both children were terminated in July 2020, but he is not a party to this appeal.

Pseudonyms are used for the children to protect their identity. --------

¶3 During an interview, Mother told detectives she witnessed Father being rough with Jaime and on a separate occasion found bruises on the child. Mother admitted noticing Jaime had a swollen leg, but believed it was from a vaccination. Mother reported that Father's behavior changed in the month before Jaime was admitted to the hospital, explaining he was depressed and became frustrated with Jaime when the child would cry. Besides asking Father about the injuries, there is no indication that Mother took steps to stop the abuse or report Father's conduct.

¶4 Father admitted to law enforcement that he shook, squeezed and slapped Jaime several times in the weeks before Jaime was treated at the hospital. Based on his admissions, which were consistent with Jaime's injuries, Father was arrested and charged with four counts of child abuse.

¶5 DCS filed a dependency petition alleging Jaime and Jordan were dependent. The allegations against Mother included failure to protect the children from abuse and neglect. Soon thereafter, DCS moved to terminate the parent-child relationship. The juvenile court consolidated the dependency and severance proceedings.

¶6 Mother failed to appear for the consolidated trial. After finding no good cause for Mother's absence, the court held the trial in absentia. At the conclusion of trial, the court adjudicated the children dependent as to Mother, and terminated Mother's parental rights, but made minimal factual findings on the record to support its orders. The court issued a signed minute entry, which again, set forth very little in the way of factual findings.

¶7 Mother timely appealed, challenging the juvenile court's failure to make specific findings of fact as required by A.R.S. § 8-538(A) and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 66(F). DCS moved this court to suspend the appeal and temporarily revest jurisdiction in the juvenile court to allow the court to make specific findings. We obliged. DCS then provided the juvenile court with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the court endorsed in its entirety. This appeal was then reinstated.

¶8 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103(A).

DISCUSSION

¶9 We review a severance ruling for an abuse of discretion, accepting the court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous, Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 (App. 2004), and view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court's ruling, Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 205, 207, ¶ 2 (App. 2008). Because the juvenile court "is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts," we will affirm an order terminating parental rights if reasonable evidence supports the order. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (quoting Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4 (App. 2004)).

¶10 "To justify termination of the parent-child relationship, the [juvenile] court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one of the statutory grounds set out in [A.R.S. §] 8-533," Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 12 (2000), and find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination is in the best interests of the children. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22 (2005). One statutory ground for termination, abuse, is defined in A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2). "[A]buse includes serious physical or emotional injury or situations in which the parent knew or reasonably should have known that a person was abusing or neglecting a child." A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2).

I. Evidence of Abuse and Best Interest

¶11 Mother contends there was no reasonable evidence demonstrating a risk of harm to Jordan because there was no evidence showing Jordan was abused. However, a juvenile court may terminate a parent's rights to a non-abused child under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) if the risk of harm to the child is proven by clear and convincing evidence. Sandra R. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 248 Ariz. 224, 229, ¶ 24 (2020) (noting a parent's proven abuse of a young child may demonstrate a comparable risk of harm to other young non-abused children). Here, the court expressly considered and found Jordan was at risk of harm because she was young, vulnerable to abuse, and lived in the same home as Jaime while he was abused. Additionally, the fact that Father admitted to abusing Jaime but may no longer be a threat to the children does not negate the risk to Jordan where there were unexplained injuries to Jaime and concerns about whether "Mother had a role in causing any of the unexplained injuries." Reasonable evidence supports the court's findings. We also note that Mother does not argue there was insufficient evidence to support termination of the parent-child relationship between herself and Jaime.

¶12 DCS also must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that terminating a parent's rights would be in the children's best interests. A.R.S. § 8-533(B); Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 288, ¶ 41. Termination of the parent-child relationship is in the children's best interests if the children would either benefit from severance or suffer continued harm from the relationship. Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5 (1990).

¶13 The court found that the children are in an adoptive placement, are prospectively adoptable, that termination of parental rights would further the plan of adoption, and that continuation of the parent-child relationship would be a detriment to the children in delaying permanency. Reasonable evidence supports the court's findings. On this record, Mother has shown no error.

II. Sufficiency of Written Findings

¶14 Every court order terminating a parent-child relationship must be in writing and recite factual findings upon which the order is based. A.R.S. § 8-538(A); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 66(F)(2)(a). At a minimum, a termination order "must specify the juvenile court's conclusions of law and 'at least one factual finding sufficient to support each of those conclusions of law.'" Logan B. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 532, 537, ¶ 14 (App. 2018) (quoting Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 236, 240, ¶ 22 (App. 2012)).

¶15 Here, at the conclusion of trial, the juvenile court made no factual findings, only a conclusion of law, regarding Mother's failure to protect Jaime from Father's abuse. The court did make one finding of fact on the record as it relates to termination of the parent-child relationship being in the children's best interests. Specifically, the court found that "the children are in a placement that intends to adopt [them]." The subsequent minute entry indicated it adopted the "basis for termination . . . as set out more fully in [DCS's] Petition for Termination of Parent-Child Relationship," but didn't elaborate any further on factual findings. At the time Mother filed her opening brief in this appeal, Mother's contention that the juvenile court's initial minute entry failed to sufficiently set forth the required findings to support its conclusions of law certainly had merit.

¶16 Recognizing the deficiency, DCS moved this court to revest jurisdiction with the juvenile court to allow the court to make sufficient findings of fact based upon the evidence presented at trial. See Logan B., 244 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 11 n. 5 (it is within this court's discretion to "suspend [an] appeal and revest jurisdiction in the juvenile court for the limited purpose of allowing the court to make the required written findings."); ARCAP 3(b); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(B). DCS prepared proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the juvenile court's ruling, which the court then endorsed in its entirety, ultimately complying with A.R.S. § 8-538(A) and Rule 66(F)(2)(a). Based upon the court's remedial measure of reducing its factual findings to writing, the court did not err.

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's order terminating Mother's parental rights to her children.


Summaries of

Anessa M. v. Dep't of Child Safety

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Apr 1, 2021
No. 1 CA-JV 20-0249 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2021)
Case details for

Anessa M. v. Dep't of Child Safety

Case Details

Full title:ANESSA M., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, A.M., A.M., Appellees.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Apr 1, 2021

Citations

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0249 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2021)