Opinion
No. 2 CA-JV 2018-0036
06-28-2018
BARBARA S., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, JUSTIN O., SAMANTHA O., AND M.O., Appellees.
COUNSEL Barbara S., Tucson In Propria Persona Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General By Michelle R. Nimmo, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. JD20170008
The Honorable Jennifer P. Langford, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Barbara S., Tucson
In Propria Persona
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
By Michelle R. Nimmo, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 Barbara S. appeals from the juvenile court's September 2017 order denying her motion to intervene in the dependency proceeding involving M.O., her biological granddaughter, who was born in April 2011. We affirm.
¶2 M.O. was adopted by appellees Justin O. and Samantha O. after the parental rights of M.O.'s biological parents were terminated in 2015. Barbara is the mother of Michelle C., M.O.'s biological mother. Although Barbara apparently had requested that the juvenile court place M.O. with her in the initial dependency proceeding, the court did not do so.
¶3 In January 2017, the Department of Child Safety (DCS) filed a dependency petition and alleged Samantha and Justin's biological children, N.O., E.O. and A.O., are dependent children because they were at risk for abuse or neglect because of injuries sustained by M.O. In December 2016, then-five-year-old M.O. was taken to a hospital by paramedics after Samantha called 9-1-1, where it was determined M.O. had sustained burns over seventy to eighty percent of her body from having been submerged in hot water. The injuries were life-threatening.
¶4 M.O.'s biological mother, Michelle C., filed a dependency petition as to M.O. in February 2017, at which time the child was still in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. At the initial dependency hearing on March 1, the juvenile court substituted DCS as the petitioner and dismissed the private dependency petition. In May, following contested proceedings, the juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent as to Justin and Samantha.
¶5 In July 2017, Barbara filed a motion to intervene in the dependency proceeding. DCS and M.O. filed responses, objecting to Barbara's intervention. After a hearing in September, the juvenile court denied Barbara's motion. Ruling from the bench, the court stated it had considered the factors set forth in Bechtel v. Rose, 150 Ariz. 68 (1986), which
it specified, subsequently entering an order that incorporated the findings and conclusions it had made on the record. Barbara has appealed from that ruling.
¶6 In her pro se opening brief, Barbara does not challenge the juvenile court's denial of her motion to intervene in the underlying dependency. Instead, she appears to challenge the initial dependency proceeding, including M.O.'s placement in foster care and the termination of the biological mother's rights. She asserts DCS and the juvenile court acted improperly by repeatedly failing to protect M.O. throughout that proceeding and by permitting Samantha and Justin to adopt her. Barbara asks this court to grant her custody of M.O.
¶7 As DCS correctly asserts, unrepresented litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. See Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76, ¶ 24 (2017). An opening brief must contain a statement of the issues and an argument that includes citation to legal authorities and appropriate references to the record. Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a) (requirements for opening briefs); see also Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 106(A) (Rule 13, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., applies to appeals from final orders of juvenile court). By failing to comply with Rule 13, a party waives arguments on appeal. Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009). We may reject an argument based on lack of proper and meaningful argument alone. See Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 345, ¶ 11 (App. 2013).
¶8 Barbara has not only failed to comply with the applicable rules, she has not directed any argument to the ruling from which this appeal was taken: the propriety of the juvenile court's denial of her motion to intervene in this proceeding. The issues she raises are not before us. We therefore affirm the court's denial of her motion to intervene.