Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 17-0214
09-28-2017
IN RE RHONDA S.
COUNSEL Rhonda S., Phoenix Appellant
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. JA52056 JA549690
The Honorable Connie Contes, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Rhonda S., Phoenix
Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge James P. Beene and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Rhonda S. ("Maternal Grandmother") appeals from the superior court's order dismissing as moot her petition to adopt her grandson, A.T. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 In March 2016, the superior court terminated A.T.'s parents' parental rights. Although A.T. had previously been placed with Maternal Grandmother, the court granted the Department of Child Safety's motion to change physical custody in October 2015, and A.T. had been living with his paternal grandparents for five months before severance.
¶3 The paternal grandparents filed a petition to adopt A.T. in June 2016. Maternal Grandmother filed a separate petition to adopt A.T. in March 2017, and also filed in the paternal grandparents' case a petition seeking to contest their adoption. The superior court finalized the paternal grandparents' adoption just one day after Maternal Grandmother filed her petition to contest.
¶4 In early April, the court issued a minute entry in the paternal grandparents' case dismissing as moot Maternal Grandmother's petition to contest the adoption because the adoption was already completed. In mid-April, the court in Maternal Grandmother's case similarly dismissed her petition to adopt as moot because A.T.'s adoption had already been completed in the paternal grandparents' case.
¶5 Maternal Grandmother timely appealed the dismissal of her petition to adopt, but took no further action in the paternal grandparents' case.
DISCUSSION
¶6 Maternal Grandmother's brief presents 17 issues, 15 of which concern not the adoption, but rather facets of the prior dependency and severance proceedings (particularly regarding the change in A.T.'s placement away from Maternal Grandmother). But Maternal Grandmother's appeal does not arise from the dependency or severance proceedings, so we lack jurisdiction to address these arguments. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 8-235(A); see also Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(A), 104(A).
Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version. --------
¶7 Another argument (alleged judicial bias) relates to the paternal grandparents' adoption proceeding. But Maternal Grandmother was never a party to that proceeding. And to the extent she attempted to join the case by filing her petition to contest, she never sought appellate review (by appeal or special action) of the adoption order or the subsequent minute entry dismissing her petition to contest in that case, and the time to do so has passed. See A.R.S. § 8-235(A); see also Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 104(A). We thus lack jurisdiction to consider this argument as well.
¶8 Maternal Grandmother's only argument that is properly before us is her claim that the superior court violated her rights by allowing her to file her petition to adopt, but subsequently vacating the hearing on the petition without giving her an opportunity to be heard. Maternal Grandmother's arguments fail because her petition to adopt became moot after the superior court granted the paternal grandparents' petition to adopt. Although she attempted to intervene in the paternal grandparents' adoption proceedings, Maternal Grandmother did not challenge the superior court's ruling denying her petition in that case. Her remedy, if any, was to move to set aside the adoption or seek special action review in the paternal grandparents' case. The adoption decision is a final judgment, and Maternal Grandmother may not attack that ruling in a separate proceeding.
CONCLUSION
¶9 We affirm.