Opinion
No. 2 CA-JV 2020-0005
04-20-2020
MONIQUE J., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY AND I.J., Appellees.
COUNSEL The Huff Law Firm PLLC, Tucson By Laura J. Huff Counsel for Appellant Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General By Michelle R. Nimmo, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety Pima County Office of Children's Counsel, Tucson By William L. Jenney V Counsel for Minor
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 103(G). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. JD20150768
The Honorable Lori B. Jones, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL The Huff Law Firm PLLC, Tucson
By Laura J. Huff
Counsel for Appellant Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
By Michelle R. Nimmo, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety Pima County Office of Children's Counsel, Tucson
By William L. Jenney V
Counsel for Minor
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred. ECKERSTROM, Judge:
¶1 Monique J. appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, I.J. (born March 2018), on mental illness and time-in-care grounds. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), (8)(c). She argues the court erred by finding that the Department of Child Safety (DCS) had provided appropriate reunification services. We affirm.
¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court's ruling. See Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445, ¶ 12 (App. 2007). I.J. was removed from Monique's care about one month after her birth. She was found dependent in June 2018 after Monique admitted the allegations in an amended petition, including that she had been diagnosed with a mental illness. Monique also admitted that, despite knowing how to manage her diabetes, she had been hospitalized multiple times during her pregnancy with I.J. due to elevated blood sugar levels, and I.J. had been born prematurely, requiring her to be placed in intensive care.
¶3 After Monique stopped meaningfully participating in services and failed to attend a dependency review hearing, the juvenile court changed the case plan from reunification to severance and adoption in September 2019. DCS then moved to terminate her parental rights based on length of time in court-ordered care and mental illness.
¶4 Monique failed to attend the initial severance hearing, and the juvenile court terminated her parental rights. However, it later vacated that order after Monique arrived at court the same day but after the hearing had concluded. Monique again failed to appear for the rescheduled initial severance hearing in December 2019, and the court granted DCS's motion, terminating her rights on both grounds. This appeal followed.
The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of I.J.'s father. He is not a party to this appeal.
¶5 On appeal, Monique argues the juvenile court erred in finding DCS had provided appropriate reunification services by providing services to aid her in managing her diabetes. Before the juvenile court may terminate a parent's rights on the ground of time in care, it must find DCS "has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services." § 8-533(B)(8). And, for termination on mental illness grounds under § 8-533(B)(3), DCS must make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. See Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185, ¶ 33 (App. 1999).
¶6 A parent who fails to object to the adequacy of services, however, waives review of the issue. Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174, ¶ 16 (App. 2014). Although Monique mentioned that her diabetes could "possibly be[] a contributing factor in this matter" at a 2017 dependency review hearing regarding her older child, she has not provided a transcript of that hearing. Nor did she object to the juvenile court's finding that DCS was providing adequate services at hearings in September 2018, December 2018, March 2019, and June 2019. Finally, she did not raise the issue at her severance hearing. She has therefore waived this issue and we need not address it further.
A permanent guardianship was established for that child in April 2018. --------
¶7 We affirm the juvenile court's order terminating Monique's parental rights.