Opinion
2 CA-JV 2023-0018
07-19-2023
In re Termination of Parental Rights as to K.C.,
Cassandra S., Tucson In Propria Persona Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General By Autumn L. Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson 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Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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 Pima County No. JD178163 The Honorable Kathleen Quigley, Judge
Cassandra S., Tucson In Propria Persona
Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General By Autumn L. Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Brearcliffe and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
KELLY, Judge:
¶1 Cassandra S. appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her son, K.C., born September 2019. We affirm.
¶2 K.C. was removed from Cassandra's and his father Ruben L.'s care in August 2020 and found dependent in February 2021. In November 2021, the Department of Child Safety (DCS) moved to terminate Cassandra's and Ruben's parental rights on the grounds of chronic substance abuse and K.C. having been in court-ordered care for fifteen months or longer. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), (8)(c). After a contested severance hearing that ended in January 2023, the juvenile court found termination was warranted on both grounds alleged and was in K.C.'s best interests. This appeal followed.
Ruben is not a party to this appeal.
¶3 Cassandra's pro se opening brief contains no legal argument and instead provides a narrative of her view of the case. An opening brief must contain argument supported by citation to authority and the record. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 607(b). Cassandra's failure to comply with our rules or make any cognizable argument on appeal constitutes waiver. See Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 345, ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (court may summarily reject arguments "[b]ased on the lack of proper and meaningful argument alone"); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (failure to comply with briefing rules "can constitute abandonment and waiver").
Appellate counsel filed an affidavit pursuant to Rule 607(e), Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct., in lieu of an opening brief, avowing that he had "reviewed the entire record on appeal" but found "no non-frivolous issues." Cassandra's pro se brief was filed pursuant to Rule 607(e)(3).
In her reply brief, Cassandra appears to attack the sufficiency of the evidence and make several arguments based on Arizona's Rules of Evidence. Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived. Marco C. v. Sean C., 218 Ariz. 216, n.1 (App. 2008).
¶4 In any event, we have reviewed the record and the juvenile court's twenty-page minute entry, which provides a detailed recitation of the facts of the case with citation to supporting documents and the court's legal analysis and conclusions. The court's factual findings include that K.C. was removed from his parents' care after both were arrested on outstanding warrants and that both parents possessed drugs when arrested. The court detailed Cassandra's long history of substance abuse. Despite DCS having provided substance abuse treatment, the court found Cassandra had regularly tested positive for methamphetamine or failed to provide samples save one brief period of sobriety in 2022-which was followed by numerous missed and positive tests over several months. The court specifically noted that Cassandra had failed to maintain sobriety despite recognizing the need to do so to have K.C. placed in her care. As to best interests, the court found K.C. was adoptable and bonded with his current placement, who was willing to adopt. In light of its "thorough findings of fact and sustainable conclusions of law with respect to both the statutory grounds for severance and the child[]'s best interests, we believe little would be gained by our further 'rehashing the trial court's correct ruling' in our decision." Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, ¶ 16 (App. 2002) (quoting State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993)).
¶5 We affirm the juvenile court's ruling terminating Cassandra's parental rights to K.C.