MELISSA N v. ADES et al
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 MELISSA N., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, KEVIN N., SAMUEL C., Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/21/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-JV 12-0033 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD20009 The Honorable M. Jean Hoag, Judge (Retired) AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Phoenix By Nicholas Chapman-Hushek, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellees Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney for Appellant Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 Appellant Melissa N. ( Mother ) timely appeals the juvenile court s order terminating her parental rights to her sons, Samuel C. and Kevin N. Mother does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) in moving to terminate Mother s parent-child relationship under Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-533(B)(4) (2011). 1 ¶2 Instead, citing A.R.S. § 8-538(A) (2008) and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court ( Rule ) 66(F), Mother argues the juvenile court failed to make sufficient findings when it granted the motion to terminate. 2 Thus, Mother asks us to reverse the termination order because the juvenile court did not find that the reported conviction was of a certain nature, nor did the [juvenile] court find that the sentenced to prison for any period of time. Appellant was On this record, we see no basis for reversal. ¶3 First, Mother s argument is not properly before us. She did not make this argument in the juvenile court and has consequently waived it. the same argument in As we recognized when confronted with Christy C. v. Arizona Department of 1 A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4) requires that evidence to justify the termination of the parent-child relationship shall include . . . that the parent is deprived of civil liberties due to the conviction of a felony if the felony of which that parent was convicted is of such nature as to prove the unfitness of that parent to have future custody and control of the child . . . or if the sentence of that parent is of such length that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of years. 2 Both A.R.S. § 8-538(A) and Rule 66 require the juvenile court to make findings of fact in support of an order terminating parental rights. 2 Economic Security, 214 Ariz. 445, 153 P.3d 1074 (App. 2007), we do not consider objections raised for the first time on appeal. Id. at 452, ¶ 21, 153 P.3d at 1081. This is particularly so in the context of juvenile court findings. Id. (quoting Bayles Inv. & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., 26 Ariz. App. 265, 271, 547 P.2d 1065, 1071 (1976)) ( [A] party may not sit back and not call the trial court s attention to the lack of a specific finding on a critical issue, and then urge on appeal that mere lack of a finding on that critical issue as a grounds for reversal. ). ¶4 Even if not waived, Mother has not suffered any prejudice from the alleged lack of findings in the termination order. 4 Mother pleaded guilty to attempted child abuse, a class felony, and a domestic violence offense. Although the termination order did not specifically refer to the felony by name in stating it was of such a nature as to prove Mother s unfitness to have future custody and control of her children or discuss the length of Mother s sentence, the court did so explicitly on the record at the conclusion of the termination hearing. The juvenile court stated: The Court has heard the evidence that . . . [Mother] . . . is deprived of her civil liberties. The point of it is that she is convicted of a felony and, according to the plea agreement, she has one prior felony conviction. Due to the conviction of a felony, which is the attempted child abuse, 3 a domestic violence crime, and the felony is of such a nature as to prove her unfitness, one of her children it is alleged that [child], consistent with the report, is the victim who came into the hospital 2/1/2011 for methadone ingestion, was found positive for cocaine. As a result of that activity, Mother was charged feloniously and through plea negotiations entered a plea of guilty. Mother accepted a plea bargain in that case associated with [Samuel C.] and as such, she agreed not to have contact with [Samuel C.] It says in the petition with the children, but the plea agreement says the victim, who is alleged to be [Samuel C.], until the child is 18 years old, which the plea agreement says she s on probation for 15 years. So she cannot have contact with one of her children due to her activities from that event on 2/1/11 for not less than 15 years. ¶5 Given the court s specific findings on the record, we see no prejudice. Therefore, we affirm the juvenile court s termination order. /s/__ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: /s/__ _ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Presiding Judge /s/__ DONN KESSLER, Judge _ 4
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.
