Carol B. v. ADES,, Michael B
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CAROL B., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, MICHAEL B., Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-JV 10-0082 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10-07-2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD17490 The Honorable Dawn M. Bergin, Judge AFFIRMED Virginia S. Matté Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Carol A. Salvati, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellees Phoenix W A R N E R, Judge ¶1 Carol B. ( Mother ) timely appeals the juvenile court s order terminating her parental relationship with Michael B. ( Son ). On appeal, Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination order. Because substantial evidence supports the order, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 ¶2 Mother has suffered from chronic substance abuse since childhood. for She served two years in prison in the early 2000s three drug related felonies, methamphetamine in June 2006. and resumed using Although Mother stopped using methamphetamine for a time, she began using again while she was pregnant with Son. ¶3 Son was born prematurely in June 2008 with a number of medical problems. methamphetamine He weighed 2.6 pounds and tested positive for and barbiturates. Mother admitted using methamphetamine less than a week before Son s birth, and agreed to place Son in foster care when he left the hospital. Arizona Department dependency petition of in Economic November Security 2008 and ( ADES ) moved to The filed a terminate Mother s parental rights in July 2009. ¶4 Son remained in out-of-home placement from his birth in June 2008 through the trial in early 2010, initially under voluntary this placement time, Mother and was later involuntary afforded 1 placement. multiple substance During abuse We view the evidence in a light most favorable to affirming the juvenile court s order. Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92, 95, ¶ 10, 210 P.3d 1263, 1266 (App. 2009). 2 treatment services and participated in several programs, none was successful in getting her off of drugs. but Mother tested positive for drugs 11 times during the pendency of this matter, and failed to test many times. Her last positive test was on December 29, 2009, less than three weeks before trial, and she failed to test as late as January 2010. ¶5 rights, The juvenile finding that court Mother is terminated unable to Mother s parental discharge parental responsibilities due to a history of chronic substance abuse, and that termination is in Son s best interests. Stat. ( A.R.S. ) § 8-533(B)(3) (Supp. 2009). Ariz. Rev. Termination is also justified, the court found, under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(a) (out-of-home placement for nine months or more) and A.R.S. § 8533(B)(8)(c) (out-of-home placement for 15 months or more). DISCUSSION ¶6 To sever a parent-child relationship, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that at least one statutory ground for severance exists, and must find by a preponderance of the evidence that severance is in the child s best interests. A.R.S. § 8-533(B); Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 377, ¶ 15, 231 P.3d 377, 381 (App. 2010). The court s findings will be set aside only if clearly erroneous, and its decision to terminate 3 parental rights is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8, 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App. 2004). ¶7 Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for termination, claiming she was making appreciable efforts at the time of the severance trial to remedy the circumstances that led to Son s out-of-home placement. She points to her two months of sobriety while attending in-patient treatment and her efforts to seek out further substance abuse treatment. ¶8 The juvenile court found that Mother has a serious addiction to methamphetamine and despite some efforts during the dependency, she has been unable to overcome it ; and that Mother is unable to care foreseeable future. for [Son] at this time and for the The record supports these findings. In particular, the findings detailed at paragraphs 15 through 31 of the juvenile court s order, all of which are supported by the evidence, show Mother s failure to maintain sobriety despite being offered multiple services, and show that all efforts to preserve her relationship with Son have failed. Rather than a path to recovery marked by occasional slips or relapses, the record supports a finding that Mother is a chronic drug abuser who has occasional periods of sobriety. 4 ¶9 The record also supports the juvenile court s findings under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c).2 It is undisputed that Son was in an out-of-home placement for more than 15 months. The evidence further supports the finding that Mother was unable to remedy her drug abuse, which was the cause of the placement, and that because of her failure to address her substance abuse problem, there is a substantial likelihood that she will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near future. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). 2 Because Son was in out-of-home placement for more than 15 months, it is unnecessary to address the more stringent requirements for termination based on a nine-month out-of-home placement. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(a). 5 CONCLUSION ¶10 Substantial findings, and the evidence court did supports not terminating Mother s parental rights. the abuse juvenile its court s discretion by We therefore affirm the termination order. /s/ __________________________________ RANDALL H. WARNER, Judge* CONCURRING: /s/ _____________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge /s/ _____________________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge *Pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, the Arizona Supreme Court designated the Honorable Randall H. Warner, Judge of the Arizona Superior Court, to sit in this matter. 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
