Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Rizona Ourt of Ppeals

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights based on 15 months time-in-care and chronic substance abuse. The children were taken into custody due to domestic violence and the mother testing positive for methamphetamine. The mother minimally participated in services and failed to demonstrate sobriety, parenting skills, or stable housing. While the mother made some recent efforts at sobriety and participation, the court found it was too little, too late, and there were ongoing concerns about her ability to safely parent. The court concluded the children needed permanency and terminating parental rights was in their best interests.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Rizona Ourt of Ppeals

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    65 views7 pages
    The court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights based on 15 months time-in-care and chronic substance abuse. The children were taken into custody due to domestic violence and the mother testing positive for methamphetamine. The mother minimally participated in services and failed to demonstrate sobriety, parenting skills, or stable housing. While the mother made some recent efforts at sobriety and participation, the court found it was too little, too late, and there were ongoing concerns about her ability to safely parent. The court concluded the children needed permanency and terminating parental rights was in their best interests.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-06-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 1 CA-JV 15-0306

    Original Title

    Veronica E. v. Dcs, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights based on 15 months time-in-care and chronic substance abuse. The children were taken into custody due to domestic violence and the mother testing positive for methamphetamine. The mother minimally participated in services and failed to demonstrate sobriety, parenting skills, or stable housing. While the mother made some recent efforts at sobriety and participation, the court found it was too little, too late, and there were ongoing concerns about her ability to safely parent. The court concluded the children needed permanency and terminating parental rights was in their best interests.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    65 views7 pages

    Rizona Ourt of Ppeals

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights based on 15 months time-in-care and chronic substance abuse. The children were taken into custody due to domestic violence and the mother testing positive for methamphetamine. The mother minimally participated in services and failed to demonstrate sobriety, parenting skills, or stable housing. While the mother made some recent efforts at sobriety and participation, the court found it was too little, too late, and there were ongoing concerns about her ability to safely parent. The court concluded the children needed permanency and terminating parental rights was in their best interests.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 7

    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.

    IN THE

    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS


    DIVISION ONE
    VERONICA E., Appellant,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, B.H., H.H., S.H., Appellees.
    No. 1 CA-JV 15-0306
    FILED 6-9-2016
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. JD 508935
    The Honorable Janice K. Crawford, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Denise Lynn Carroll, Esq., Scottsdale
    By Denise Lynn Carroll
    Counsel for Appellant
    Arizona Attorney Generals Office, Mesa
    By Nicholas Chapman-Hushek
    Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety

    VERONICA E. v. DCS et al.


    Decision of the Court

    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court,
    in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Donn Kessler joined.

    D O W N I E, Judge:
    1
    Veronica E. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her
    parental rights to B.H., S.H., and H.H. (collectively, the children). For the
    following reasons, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    2
    On November 2, 2013, the Department of Child Safety
    (DCS) received a report that Mother and the childrens father were
    engaging in domestic violence. That same day, Mother tested positive for
    methamphetamine. DCS took the children into temporary custody and
    offered Mother services to address domestic violence, substance abuse,
    housing, and parenting issues.
    3
    Mother minimally participated in services. As of May 27,
    2014, she had missed 50% of her required drug tests and had tested positive
    for methamphetamine on numerous occasions. Mother was resistant to
    outpatient drug treatment at TERROS, fail[ed] to follow through with
    appointments, lack[ed] motivation and participate[d] minimally. As a
    result, inpatient treatment was recommended.
    4
    Mother was referred to TERROS Maverick House for
    inpatient treatment. But her stay at that facility was short-lived. Mother
    told her parent aide she was discharged from Maverick House because she
    [did] not need such intense treatment. TERROS, however, reported that
    Mother was involuntarily discharged due to her inappropriate behavior.
    5
    In addition to ongoing concerns about substance abuse, as of
    October 2014, when the case plan changed to severance and adoption,
    Mother had failed to maintain safe, stable housing or demonstrate
    appropriate parenting skills, and she had not resolved her domestic
    violence issues. Services ceased in September 2014 when Mother was
    sentenced to nine months in jail.
    6
    DCS moved to terminate Mothers parental rights in
    December 2014. A severance trial occurred after Mothers release from jail.
    2

    VERONICA E. v. DCS et al.


    Decision of the Court
    DCS case manager Mead testified that, given Mothers history of substance
    abuse, a minimum of one years sobriety was necessary for the agency to
    consider returning the children. Although Mother completed a substance
    abuse program in jail, DCS remained concerned about domestic violence
    and Mothers ability to parent the children and provide stable housing.
    7
    During her severance trial testimony, Mother refused to
    accept any responsibility for the childrens removal; she placed a lot of
    blame on [her] situation with the case manager and other people. Mother
    denied neglecting the children in any kind of way, despite the fact they
    were exposed to domestic violence, had lice and major tooth problems,
    and lacked basic hygiene skills when taken into care. Additionally, at least
    two of the children were very behind on their immunizations. When
    asked who was responsible for the circumstances culminating in the
    termination proceedings, Mother responded, I put blame on [DCS], on
    them not helping me enough not giving me enough resources, not being
    there for me, not helping me with the help that I asked for. Mother denied
    any substance abuse problems before moving to Arizona in 2012, though
    evidence of record reflects she completed a substance abuse program in
    2007 during a dependency proceeding in Nevada and, by her own selfreport, began using drugs at age 15. On this point, the superior court
    concluded:
    Mother has a significant substance abuse history. Although
    Mother testified that she only used methamphetamines since
    moving to Arizona and only tried cocaine and marijuana a
    few times, the Court finds Mothers disclosures to Terros as
    set forth in Exhibit 17 to be more credible than Mothers
    testimony.
    Based on the credible evidence, Mothers
    substance use began when Mother was approximately 12 at
    which time Mother was introduced to cocaine by her parents.
    Mother continued to use cocaine until she was approximately
    17 at which time Mother became incarcerated.
    8
    The superior court terminated Mothers parental rights based
    on 15 months time-in-care and chronic substance abuse. Mother timely
    appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes
    (A.R.S.) sections 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and 12-2101(A)(1).

    VERONICA E. v. DCS et al.


    Decision of the Court
    DISCUSSION
    I.

    Fifteen Months Time-In-Care

    9
    To terminate parental rights based on 15 months time-incare, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that DCS made
    a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services, the children
    have been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period of
    fifteen months or longer pursuant to court order, and the parent has been
    unable to remedy the circumstances that cause[d] the child[ren] to be in an
    out-of-home placement and there is a substantial likelihood that the parent
    will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and
    control in the near future. A.R.S. 8-533(B)(8)(c); see also 8-537(B)
    (grounds for termination shall be based upon clear and convincing
    evidence).
    10
    We review the superior courts order for an abuse of
    discretion and will not disturb it unless the courts findings of fact were
    clearly erroneous, i.e., there is no reasonable evidence to support them.
    Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JV-132905, 186 Ariz. 607, 609 (App. 1996).
    Because the superior court is in the best position to evaluate witness
    credibility and weigh conflicting evidence, we defer to its judgment on such
    matters. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dept of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, 4 (App.
    2002).
    11
    Mother does not dispute that, at the time of the severance
    trial, the children had been in out-of-home placements in excess of 15
    months. She argues instead that the court erred in terminating her rights
    because she had made significant progress in her sobriety.
    12
    When terminating parental rights under the 15 months timein-care ground, the court focuses on the parents success in remedying the
    circumstances that led to the out-of-home placement. See, e.g., Jordan C. v.
    Ariz. Dept of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, 96, 17, 31 (App. 2009) (if DCS
    offered services designed to improve the parents ability to care for the
    child, evidence showing a parents progress, or lack thereof, is critical).
    Mothers reported significant progress in her sobriety is relevant, but not
    dispositive. At the time of trial, Mother was living in a halfway house.
    Although she was sober in that environment, based on her previous periods
    of sobriety followed by relapse, DCS and the court were reasonably
    concerned about her ability to sustain sobriety in the real world. Indeed,
    the court found that Mother is at high risk of relapse and has a very poor
    ability to tolerate or cope with problems.

    VERONICA E. v. DCS et al.


    Decision of the Court
    13
    Furthermore, the concerns that led to the childrens removal
    encompassed more than Mothers substance abuse. Mother failed to
    participate in offered services before her incarceration to address parenting
    skills and her history of domestic violence. Additionally, Mother did not
    meet her objectives when working with the parent aide. She canceled
    several one-on-one skills sessions with the aide and was warned numerous
    times about her inappropriate behavior during visits with the children.
    Even after her release from jail, Mother continued to communicate with the
    children inappropriately, leading the superior court to conclude she has a
    pattern and practice of disregarding rules and blaming others for her
    transgressions.
    14
    Although the superior court recognized that Mother
    participated in a substance abuse program while incarcerated and had
    maintained sobriety for two months after release, it deemed her efforts
    sporadic until very recently. We have previously held that tardy, goodfaith efforts may be insufficient to prevent termination. In Maricopa County
    Juvenile Action No. JS-501568, for example, we affirmed a severance order
    even though the mother had been sober for the eight months preceding the
    severance trial. 177 Ariz. 571, 577, 580 (App. 1994). We emphasized that a
    parent should begin overcoming their addiction and assuming their
    parental responsibilities as soon as possible. Id. at 577. Leaving the
    window of opportunity for remediation open indefinitely is not necessary,
    nor do we think that it is in the childs or the parents best interests. Id.
    15
    Although late-stage efforts may be objectively commendable,
    they may also be too little, too late. See id. Such is the case here. The
    court reasonably concluded that before the children could be safely
    returned to Mothers care, she would need to demonstrate at least 12
    months of post-incarceration sobriety. Yet as the DCS case worker testified,
    continuing the dependency proceedings would only prolong the
    [childrens] instability.
    16
    Mother also argues DCS did not offer services she needed
    before her incarceration. The record does not support this contention, and
    the superior court found Mothers testimony about the purported
    inadequacy of services unpersuasive. Mother testified she called Mead all
    the time seeking a domestic violence class referral but she never received
    it. The record reflects, though, that the parent aide consulted with Mother
    about domestic violence resources, including shelters, and gave her
    relevant information, including identification of necessary behavioral
    changes. Mother also acknowledged she could have obtained individual
    counseling through TERROS, but opined that it would have been with a
    5

    VERONICA E. v. DCS et al.


    Decision of the Court
    counselor that was not an addict and didnt know anything about drug
    use. Mothers subjective views do not excuse her failure to at least attempt
    to utilize the offered counseling services.
    17
    The superior court reasonably concluded that DCS made a
    diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services, that Mother
    failed to remedy the circumstances that led to out-of-home placement, and
    that she would not be capable of exercising proper parental control in the
    near future. Because we affirm the 15 months time-in-care basis for
    termination, we need not reach the additional ground for severance found
    by the superior court. See Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dept of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz.
    373, 37677, 14 (App. 2010).
    II.

    Best Interests

    18
    In addition to finding a statutory ground for termination, the
    superior court must also find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
    termination is in the childrens best interests. Raymond F., 224 Ariz. at 377,
    15. Termination is appropriate if the children would be harmed if the
    relationship continued or would benefit from the termination. Demetrius
    L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1, 4, 16 (2016). Factors considered are whether:
    1) an adoptive placement is immediately available; 2) the existing
    placement is meeting the needs of the child; and 3) the children are
    adoptable. Raymond F., 224 Ariz. at 379, 30.
    19
    The superior court concluded that severing Mothers parental
    rights would benefit the children and failing to do so would harm them. It
    found Mother was at a high risk of relapse, which placed the children at
    risk of being exposed to drug use. The court further found that
    termination would provide the children with a safe stable permanent
    home free of substance abuse, mental health issues, and domestic violence.
    The court expressed concern that Mother would not acknowledge or
    recognize the emotional harm the Children have suffered as a result of
    being exposed to the domestic violence and substance abuse.
    20
    The DCS case worker testified that the youngest child S.H.
    was in a home that was willing to adopt her. H.H. and B.H. were placed
    together in a long-term foster home that was meeting their needs, though it
    was not an adoptive placement. At the time of the trial, H.H. was nine years

    VERONICA E. v. DCS et al.


    Decision of the Court
    old, and B.H. was 13 years old. Mead opined that both children were
    adoptable.1 She described them as happy, bright, smart, [and] caring.
    21
    Based on the record before it, the superior court reasonably
    concluded that termination of Mothers parental rights was in the childrens
    best interests.
    CONCLUSION
    22

    We affirm the judgment of the superior court.

    :AA

    Mead testified that B.H. had given her consent to adoption the day
    before trial. Between the first and second day of the trial, however, B.H.
    wrote a letter stating, in pertinent part: These past couple of visits have
    been amazing and I miss my mom a lot and I cant loose her I cant get
    adopted if anything I want to stay with the foster family Im with now until
    my mom can get a house in buckeye so no adoption . . . . (Errors in
    original.)
    1

    Given B.H.s changed position, Mother and DCS asked the court to hold the
    termination decision as to B.H. in abeyance. The court declined to do so,
    but stated it would consider the letter. In its best interests findings, the
    superior court discussed B.H.s wavering position about adoption,
    concluding:
    With Mother currently being sober, it is understandable that
    [B.H.] would vacillate on wanting to be adopted. [B.H.] has
    previously expressed her fear of reunifying with Mother and
    having the same cycle repeat again.
    The cycle of
    incarceration, substance abuse, and domestic violence have
    been a cycle that these Children have observed most of their
    lives.
    The court was required to consider B.H.s position, and it did so. We find
    no error stemming from the courts refusal to hold the proceedings in
    abeyance as to B.H. or from the best interests finding as to B.H.

    You might also like