Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 18-0236
01-31-2019
PATRICIA G., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, P.B., R.S., Appellees.
COUNSEL David W. Bell, Attorney at Law, Mesa By David W. Bell Counsel for Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa By Amanda 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. JD30518
The Honorable Jeanne M. Garcia, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL David W. Bell, Attorney at Law, Mesa
By David W. Bell
Counsel for Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa
By Amanda Adams
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined. CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Patricia G. ("Mother") appeals the superior court's ruling terminating her parental rights as to P.B. and R.S. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Mother is the biological parent of P.B., born in 2002, and R.S., born in 2012. Mother emigrated from Liberia in 2004 and speaks Krahn and Liberian English. She also has limited proficiency in American English.
¶3 After receiving reports that Mother was medically neglecting her children, the Department of Child Safety ("DCS") filed a dependency petition, and in September 2015, the superior court found the children dependent as to Mother. P.B., who was wheelchair-bound and diagnosed with cerebral palsy, was severely atrophied, underweight, and malnourished. Live cockroaches were found in his wheelchair at school. R.S. was underweight and developmentally delayed with cognitive and social difficulties. His hands were curled and he could not eat with utensils; instead, he would use his knuckles to pick up items. R.S. was also nonverbal when he came into DCS care at almost 3 years old, and he was abnormally afraid of his surroundings.
¶4 To teach Mother how to provide appropriate parental supervision and attend to her children's medical needs, DCS provided an array of reunification services with either a Krahn or Liberian English interpreter. A Krahn interpreter translated at all court proceedings, and although no interpreter was present at parent-aide or supervised visitations, Mother communicated in American English with the case aides and the DCS caseworker without issue, and she told the caseworker that she understood the parenting instructions.
¶5 Despite receiving these services, Mother did not exhibit the necessary behavioral changes to adequately parent P.B. and R.S. Mother did not acknowledge her children's medical conditions or take responsibility for their neglect. She continued to feed R.S. unhealthy, sugary foods despite knowing that such foods contributed to his severe gastrointestinal issues, and Mother attempted to give P.B. a lollipop despite knowing that he could only consume pureed foods. When asked to name a parenting area in which she could improve, Mother responded that she had no deficits and did not need to improve. Because of Mother's limited progress, in January 2017, the court changed the case plan to severance and adoption.
¶6 After being out of Mother's care, the children thrived. P.B. gained 20 pounds and began his first of three surgeries to address the early years of neglect that had stunted his growth. R.S.'s hands were no longer curled, he became verbal, and his fears subsided. The children were in long-term placements that provided stability; R.S.'s foster family wanted to adopt him and P.B.'s foster family indicated a willingness to continue providing care.
¶7 From June 2017 to March 2018, the superior court conducted a nine-day severance hearing, and Mother decided not to contest severance as to P.B. After considering the evidence, the superior court found clear and convincing evidence that severance as to both children was warranted under the statutory ground of 15 months' time in care. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 8-533(B)(8)(c). The court further found by a preponderance of the evidence that severance was in the children's best interests. Accordingly, the court terminated Mother's parental rights as to P.B. and R.S.
DISCUSSION
¶8 Mother argues that DCS failed to make diligent efforts to provide appropriate reunification services because a Krahn interpreter was not present at all services. As relevant here, to terminate parental rights based on 15 months' out-of-home placement under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c), the superior court must find that DCS made diligent efforts to provide the parent with appropriate reunification services. DCS is not required to provide the parent with every conceivable service, but rather must provide the parent with the time and opportunity to engage in services that will help her become a better parent. Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353 (App. 1994). We will affirm the superior court's severance ruling unless clearly erroneous, and we accept the court's factual findings as long as reasonably supported by the evidence. Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9 (2016). We do not reweigh the evidence, and we defer to the superior court's resolution of conflicts in the evidence. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 12 (App. 2002).
¶9 Here, Mother waived any objection regarding the adequacy of the services provided and/or the lack of an interpreter. Although DCS was obligated to make diligent efforts to provide Mother with appropriate reunification services, Mother was similarly obligated to notify DCS if the services provided were inadequate. See Shawanee S. v Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174, 178-79, ¶¶ 13-16 (App. 2014). Mother never asked DCS for an interpreter during services, and instead, when asked by DCS, she either declined the assistance of a Krahn interpreter or asked for a Liberian English interpreter. Moreover, Mother affirmatively told DCS that she understood its expectations and the parenting instructions.
¶10 Mother testified at the severance hearing that she did not understand most of the severance proceedings and DCS's expectations. But it was incumbent upon Mother to notify DCS at a point in the proceedings when her concerns could be addressed, see id. at 179, ¶ 18, and by failing to do so, she waived any objection to the lack of a Krahn interpreter and the adequacy of the services provided.
¶11 Waiver notwithstanding, reasonable evidence supports the superior court's determination that DCS made diligent efforts to ensure that Mother understood what was required of her and to offer appropriate reunification services. DCS provided multiple services with a Krahn or Liberian English interpreter, and Mother testified that she spoke both languages. The services provided with an interpreter included: a bonding and best interests assessment, individual counseling, parenting classes, a team decision-making meeting, phone calls, and case management. DCS also offered Mother transportation and bus passes when needed to participate in the services.
¶12 Not only was Mother provided with a Krahn or Liberian English interpreter at most reunification services, DCS also provided several other services in American English (e.g., parent-aide and supervised visitation), and reasonable evidence supports the superior court's determination that Mother possessed a level of English comprehension sufficient to take advantage of these services. Mother had lived in the United States since 2004, and she successfully completed parent-aide services and spoke with the case aides in American English during supervised visitation. Case aides also documented that Mother spoke American English with her children, and the DCS caseworker indicated that she communicated easily with Mother in American English. Moreover, at various points during the severance hearing, Mother answered questions asked in American English before the questions had been interpreted.
¶13 Accordingly, considering the totality of all services provided, the superior court did not err by finding that DCS made diligent efforts to ensure that Mother understood the proceedings and was provided with appropriate reunification services.
Mother does not challenge the superior court's finding that termination of her parental rights is in the children's best interests. Therefore, we do not address it here. See Crystal E. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 241 Ariz. 576, 577-78, ¶ 5 (App. 2017). --------
CONCLUSION
¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.