Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 14-0262
02-17-2015
MEAGEN G., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, A.G., M.G., Appellees.
COUNSEL Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Robert D. Rosanelli Counsel for Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa By Amanda L. Adams 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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
No. JD527571
The Honorable Brian K. Ishikawa, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Robert D. Rosanelli
Counsel for Appellant
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa
By Amanda L. Adams
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. NORRIS, Judge:
¶1 Meagen G. appeals from the juvenile court's order finding her children, A.G. and M.G., dependent because of her substance abuse, mental and physical health, and inability to provide appropriate parental supervision. See generally Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 8-201(14) (2014). On appeal, Meagen argues the juvenile court's findings were unsupported by reasonable evidence and clearly erroneous, and thus, the juvenile court deprived her of her constitutional right to parent her children. Because reasonable evidence supports the juvenile court's findings, we disagree with both arguments and affirm the dependency order.
¶2 "We will not disturb the juvenile court's ruling in a dependency action unless the findings upon which it is based are clearly erroneous and there is no reasonable evidence supporting them." Pima Cnty. Juv. Dependency Action No. 118537, 185 Ariz. 77, 79, 912 P.2d 1306, 1308 (App. 1994) (citing Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-75482, 111 Ariz. 588, 536 P.2d 197 (1975)). Under A.R.S. § 8-844(C) (2014), the juvenile court shall find a child dependent if the Arizona Department of Economic Security ("ADES") proves by a preponderance of the evidence one of the grounds found in A.R.S. § 8-201(14). See Carolina H. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 232 Ariz. 569, 571, ¶ 7, 307 P.3d 996, 998 (App. 2013). A child who is "in need of proper and effective parental care," yet has no parent willing or "capable of exercising such care" is a "dependent child." A.R.S. § 8-201(14)(a)(i).
In accordance with ARCAP 27, we have substituted the Department of Child Safety ("DCS") for ADES because the pertinent responsibilities of ADES have been transferred to DCS. Senate Bill 1001, § 157, 51st Leg., 2d Spec. Sess. (Ariz. 2014) (enacted).
¶3 In March 2014, ADES received a report concerning A.G.'s absence from school. ADES investigated the situation and discovered A.G. had missed at least 31 days of school, had been tardy an additional 27 times, and appeared to be caring for herself. During its investigation, Meagen advised ADES she was suffering from a kidney infection, and was taking prescribed psychotropic medications for anxiety and depression, narcotic medications for pain, and sedatives to help her sleep. Meagen also did not appear to have stable housing. Further, ADES became concerned Meagen was using drugs — Meagen refused to submit urine samples to the Treatment Assessment Screening Center so it could rule out possible drug use. ADES removed the children from Meagen's home on April 1, 2014.
¶4 After ADES removed the children, Meagen failed to report for at least 32 required drug tests. On three occasions she tested positive for methamphetamine. Indeed, just two weeks before the dependency adjudication hearing, Meagen failed to report for a required drug test.
¶5 At the dependency adjudication hearing in September 2014, Meagen acknowledged she was being treated for depression and anxiety, had received such treatment for approximately seven years, and stated that her depression and anxiety had worsened after ADES removed the children. She also acknowledged that during a May 2014 psychiatric evaluation, she had expressed feelings of anger, lack of motivation, lack of interest, and lack of focus, and had admitted suffering from random panic attacks. The evaluation, which was admitted into evidence, also reported that Meagen described her typical day as, "Sleep all day. No activities. A good day is when I accomplish something. It's been getting really bad."
¶6 At the hearing, Meagen also testified she had suffered from kidney, liver, and gallbladder problems and had been seen at the emergency room approximately two weeks before the hearing. The children's guardian ad litem asked Meagen whether she had any concerns that her health issues would prevent her from caring for her children, and she responded: "Yeah, there is a lot of things going on, but I feel like if we were—I wouldn't be so ill, I would say, a lot of—I think stress has really taken its toll on us as well, but yeah, it concerns me."
¶7 Although Meagen testified she could parent her children despite her mental and physical health problems and denied using illegal drugs, the juvenile court was "in the best position to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of the parties, observe the parties, and make appropriate factual findings." Pima Cnty. Dependency Action No. 93511, 154 Ariz. 543, 546, 744 P.2d 455, 458 (App. 1987). ADES presented reasonable evidence supporting the juvenile court's findings, and its findings are not, therefore, "clearly erroneous." Pima Cnty. Juv. Dependency Action No. 118537, 185 Ariz. at 79, 912 P.2d at 1308.
¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's order finding the children dependent as to Meagen.