Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 17-0386
02-27-2018
NICOLE M., Appellant, v. DEBRA S., S.M., Appellees.
COUNSEL Law Office of Elizabeth M. Hale, Show Low By Elizabeth M. Hale Counsel for Appellant Law Office of Gregory D. Green, PLLC, Winslow By Gregory D. Green Counsel for Appellee Debra S.
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Navajo County
No. S0900GC201600116, S0900SV201600040
The Honorable Donna J. Grimsley, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Law Office of Elizabeth M. Hale, Show Low
By Elizabeth M. Hale
Counsel for Appellant Law Office of Gregory D. Green, PLLC, Winslow
By Gregory D. Green
Counsel for Appellee Debra S.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined. JONES, Judge:
¶1 Nicole M. (Mother) appeals the superior court's order terminating her parental rights to S.M. (Child) and granting Debra S. (Aunt) permanent guardianship over him. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 The Department of Child Safety (DCS), concerned about Mother's substance abuse, removed then-two-month-old Child from Mother's care in early 2015 and placed him with Aunt. Mother regained custody of Child in July 2016, but he remained with her only until an uncle, concerned about Mother's sobriety and ability to parent, returned Child to Aunt's home and care in October 2016.
We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court's order. See Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 205, 207, ¶ 2 (App. 2008).
¶3 Aunt immediately observed disconcerting changes in Child's demeanor and filed separate petitions to be appointed Child's permanent guardian and to terminate Mother's parental rights to Child. Both petitions alleged Mother had abandoned Child and was otherwise unable or unwilling to provide appropriate care for Child as a result of ongoing substance abuse, domestic violence, and criminal conduct. Aunt was granted temporary guardianship of Child, and shortly thereafter, Mother was arrested for, and later convicted of, a burglary that occurred while she was under the influence of methamphetamine and marijuana. A trial was held on both petitions in May and June 2017.
¶4 At the hearing, Aunt presented witnesses and police reports indicating Mother had struggled with illegal drug use since she was a teenager, continued to use illegal drugs, and neglected her parental responsibilities as a result. Aunt also testified she was bonded to Child, willing and able to meet his needs, and hoped to adopt him.
¶5 Mother attended telephonically from a substance abuse rehabilitation facility where she had completed one month of a twelve-to-eighteen-month residential program that was required as a term of probation. She testified she began using methamphetamine at age thirteen and had tried, unsuccessfully, to quit three times in the past fifteen years. She also used marijuana and "spice" periodically.
¶6 After taking the matter under advisement, the superior court granted both petitions, terminated Mother's parental rights to Child on the grounds of abandonment and chronic substance abuse, and granted Aunt permanent guardianship of Child. Mother timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 8-235, 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1), (9), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103(A).
Absent material change from the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version. --------
DISCUSSION
¶7 Mother first argues the superior court erred in finding Aunt presented clear and convincing evidence that severance was warranted on the ground of abandonment. However, an order terminating parental rights will be affirmed where any one of the statutory grounds is supported by the record. See Crystal E. v. DCS, 241 Ariz. 576, 577-78, ¶¶ 4-5 (App. 2017). Mother does not challenge the court's determination that termination was also warranted based upon Mother's chronic substance abuse, and she has therefore waived any claim of error on that basis. Id. (citing State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147, 163 (1983), and Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231, 234 n.6, ¶ 14 (App. 2011)). Accordingly, we affirm the termination of Mother's parental rights on the grounds of chronic substance abuse and need not and do not address its findings of abandonment. Id. (citing Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3 (App. 2002)).
¶8 Mother next argues the superior court erred in granting Aunt permanent guardianship of Child. The applicable statute, A.R.S. § 14-5204, authorizes the court to "appoint a guardian of an unmarried minor if all parental rights of custody have been terminated or suspended by circumstances or prior court order." Mother argues her rights to custody were not "terminated or suspended by circumstances" at the time the guardianship order entered. We disagree.
¶9 The superior court's conclusion that Mother was unable or unwilling to make safe and reasonable parenting decisions as a result of her chronic substance abuse, unchallenged on appeal, establishes that Mother's parental rights were terminated or suspended by circumstance. Although Mother disputes the veracity of the evidence Aunt presented to support the petition, the court below "is best positioned to 'observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts,'" and we will not second-guess its determinations. Alma S. v. DCS, 778 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 24, ¶ 9 (App. Nov. 14, 2017) (quoting Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009)). The court's findings are supported by reasonable evidence, and we find no error. See Jennifer S. v. DCS, 240 Ariz. 282, 287, ¶ 16 (App. 2016) ("We will not disturb the juvenile court's order unless no reasonable evidence supports its factual findings.") (citing Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 547, 549, ¶ 7 (App. 2010)).
CONCLUSION
¶10 The superior court's orders are affirmed.