Opinion
1 CA-JV 24-0018
07-30-2024
IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.R.
Harris & Winger, P.C., Flagstaff By Chad Joshua Winger Counsel for Appellant Yoshie R. Arizona Attorney General's Office, Tucson By Autumn Spritzer Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015JD202200114 The Honorable Aaron Michael Demke, Judge Pro Tempore
Harris & Winger, P.C., Flagstaff By Chad Joshua Winger Counsel for Appellant Yoshie R.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Tucson By Autumn Spritzer Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BAILEY, JUDGE
¶1 Yoshie R. ("Mother") appeals the termination of her parental rights to A.R. ("Child"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court's order. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 547, 549, ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
¶3 Mother is the parent of Child, born in August 2022. The Department of Child Safety ("DCS") obtained temporary physical custody of Child a few days later, after learning Mother had tested positive for marijuana during a prenatal appointment, and for marijuana and methamphetamine on the day of Child's delivery. Hospital staff informed DCS that Child's father ("Father") had made concerning remarks at the hospital, such as asking whether it was stressful for a baby to be around a person yelling and screaming. The staff also reported that Mother disclosed physical assault by Father and that she had depression. Police reports revealed 17 incidents of domestic violence between Mother and Father, several of which resulted in Mother or Father's arrest.
The superior court also terminated Father's parental rights, but he is not a party to this appeal.
¶4 DCS petitioned for dependency, alleging substance abuse, domestic violence, and untreated mental illness grounds against Mother. The superior court adjudicated Child dependent as to Mother in November 2022 and ordered DCS to continue making reasonable efforts to provide Mother reunification services. DCS arranged for Mother to have substance abuse assessment, testing and treatment; mental health assessments and treatment; domestic violence counseling; parenting classes; supervised visitation; referrals to community resources; transportation; case management services; case plan staffing; and team decision-making meetings. Child remained in foster care throughout the dependency.
¶5 Mother initially participated in supervised visitation and parenting program services but struggled to interact with Child and perform basic parenting tasks. Mother displayed erratic behaviors, and when asked to undergo testing for two weeks to rule out substance use, Mother ceased communication and visitation, missing several scheduled appointments. After numerous attempts to contact her, DCS successfully arranged for Mother to undergo a psychological evaluation. The psychologist diagnosed Mother with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type; unspecified anxiety disorder; and cannabis use disorder, mild, in remission. The psychologist recommended that Mother participate in a psychiatric evaluation and medication management, complete parenting classes, participate in individual therapy to address her history of domestic violence, and undergo substance abuse assessment and any recommended treatment.
¶6 DCS met with Mother to discuss these recommendations and referred her to a counselor, but Mother did not contact the counselor or respond to the counselor's outreach efforts. Mother also refused to engage in medication management. As a result, in May 2023, the superior court changed the case plan to termination and adoption, and DCS moved to terminate Mother's parental rights.
¶7 After a one-day contested trial in December 2023, the superior court terminated Mother's parental rights based on the statutory grounds of mental illness and fifteen months' out-of-home placement. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 8-533(B)(3), (8)(c). The court found that despite DCS making "extraordinary efforts" to provide Mother rehabilitative services, Mother "has not engaged in these services which could have helped her manage her condition." The court found Mother "has been unable to remedy the circumstances that cause [Child] to be in an out-of-home placement," including domestic violence incidents, neglectful behaviors toward Child during visitation, lack of engagement with counseling and family services, and refusal to engage in medication management and treatment. The court also found that termination would be in Child's best interests because it would allow him to have a safe and stable home environment. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B).
¶8 Mother timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and 12-2101(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶9 On appeal, Mother does not challenge the statutory bases for termination of her parental rights. Instead, she challenges only the superior court's best interests finding, arguing the court failed to consider the likelihood of Child remaining with her as part of its analysis, and that insufficient evidence supports the finding that Child would be subject to a "risk of harm" if left in Mother's care.
¶10 "The [superior] court, as the trier of fact in a termination proceeding, is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and make appropriate findings." Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002) (citation omitted). We will affirm a termination order unless clearly erroneous. Id.
¶11 The superior court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances when making a best interests finding. Dominique M. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 96, 99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016). The best interests inquiry requires the court to balance the parent's rights "against the independent and often adverse interests of the child in a safe and stable home life." Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 286, ¶ 35 (2005). The inquiry "focuses primarily upon the interests of the child, as distinct from those of the parent." Id. at 287, ¶ 37. "[A] determination of the child's best interest must include a finding as to how the child would benefit from a [termination] or be harmed by the continuation of the relationship." Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-500274 , 167 Ariz. 1, 5 (1990) (citations omitted).
¶12 The superior court concluded that terminating Mother's parental rights would benefit Child because it would allow Child "to have a safe and stable home environment." The court found that Mother was "unable to meet [Child's] basic needs," and that Child "would be at significant risk of harm" in Mother's care. The court also found that Child's current placement was providing a "safe and permanent home."
¶13 Despite DCS's efforts to help Mother reunify with Child, Mother failed to meaningfully engage in services. She ceased contact after DCS recommended substance abuse testing. And after DCS arranged for Mother to meet with a psychologist, Mother declined to engage with the recommended counselor or in parent-aide services and medication management. Mother's counsel conceded during closing argument that DCS had made reasonable efforts to reunify her with Child.
¶14 After considering all the evidence, the superior court found that Mother is unable to meet Child's basic needs. Reasonable evidence supports the court's findings and conclusion that termination would allow Child to have safety and stability, which the record shows Mother is unable to offer. See Sandra R. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 248 Ariz. 224, 231, ¶¶ 32-33 (2020) (affirming the superior court's best interests analysis because reasonable evidence supported the court's finding that termination would benefit the children).
CONCLUSION
¶15 We affirm.