CHRISTOPHER C. 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.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/18/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CHRISTOPHER C., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, VINCENT H., CHRISTOPHER C., Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-JV 12-0067 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz.R.P.Juv.Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD508668 The Honorable Brian Ishikawa, Judge AFFIRMED Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Laura J. Huff, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellees Tucson H O W E, Judge ¶1 of Christopher C. ( Father ) appeals from the termination his parental rights to V.H. and C.C. ( the children ) pursuant to Arizona Revised 533(B)(3) (Westlaw 2012).1 Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8- Finding no error, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Father, parent of thirty-seven minors respectively.2 V.H. and years C.C., old, born is in the 2007, biological and 2009, Father began using methamphetamine when he was sixteen years old. ¶3 Child Protective Services ( CPS ) received two separate reports within three months of each other in 2009 that Father and the children s mother had neglected the children as a result of substance abuse. CPS then received another report that Father was using methamphetamine, selling drugs from the home, allowing a child molester to live in the home with the children, and living with the children in an unclean home. Although Father admitted using methamphetamine, he denied the other allegations. from the home and Despite his denial, CPS removed the children filed a dependency petition. After an 1 Absent material revisions to this decision, we cite the current version of applicable statutes. 2 Father is also the parent to minor S.C., who is subject to a separate appeal in case CA-JV 12-0068. 2 adjudication, the juvenile court found that the children were dependant as to Father.3 ¶4 CPS established a case plan of family reunification and offered Father a number of services, including substanceabuse assessment and treatment though TERROS, random urinalysis testing, psychological consultation, parent-aide services, and supervised visits. Father was also required to maintain a safe, drug-free home environment; to secure employment; and to obtain financial stability. ¶5 required. Father consulted with a psychologist as the case plan He tested negative for illegal drugs until August 20, 2010, when he tested positive for methamphetamine. After that point, he failed to call in as required for random urinalysis testing. ¶6 Father completed substance abuse treatment with TERROS in October 2010; however, he relapsed the next month. He again failed to call in for random urinalysis multiple and occasions. His case manager believed that he relapsed. Father to completed submit a to second required on occasions, ¶7 failed testing testing psychological on six evaluation where he admitted using methamphetamine but asserted that it did 3 The children were adjudicated dependent as to their mother in October 2010. The juvenile court terminated the mother s parental rights to the children and she is not subject to this appeal. 3 not interfere with concluded that lifestyle was stable and doubtful. his Father s children s commitment marginal, secure The home care. and his to a also psychologist clean commitment environment psychologist The to for his noted that and sober providing children Father a was risked relapse because he used illicit drugs regularly for eighteen years, reported acknowledged a less than five methamphetamine methamphetamine users. months addiction, The of abstinence, and associated with psychologist opined that [s]everance and adoption may be necessary unless [Father] can recognize and remedy his deficits as a parent, especially with regard to protecting his children and permanently ceasing his drug use. ¶8 Father s employment, support failure to himself maintain financially, sobriety, and make secure necessary changes to show that he could effectively parent the children, caused CPS to recommend changing his case plan to severance and adoption. Despite his initial participation in services, CPS moved to change the case plan to terminate his parental rights, and the court agreed. ¶9 CPS alleged that Father s parental rights should be terminated in September 2011 because he had a history of chronic abuse of dangerous drugs that made him unable to discharge parental responsibilities, and that reasonable grounds existed 4 to believe that the condition would continue for a prolonged indeterminate period. After a contested severance hearing, the juvenile by court found clear and convincing evidence that Father was unable to discharge his parental responsibilities. It also found that CPS proved by a preponderance of the evidence that terminating Father s parental relationship was in the children s best interest. ¶10 Father timely appealed the court s termination order. This court has jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 8-235 and 12-120.21. DISCUSSION ¶11 Father argues that the terminated his parental rights. juvenile court erroneously He argues specifically that his history of drug abuse alone does not support a termination of parental rights. ¶12 We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court s order. Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 205, 207, ¶ 2, 181 P.3d 1126, 1128 (App. 2008). We do not reweigh the evidence because the juvenile court, as the trier of fact, is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4, 100 P.3d 943, 945 (App. 2004). the juvenile court s factual findings 5 if reasonable We accept evidence supports them, and we affirm a severance order unless it is clearly erroneous. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002). ¶13 To termination, satisfy the the statutory juvenile court requirement must find for by parental clear and convincing evidence that a ground for termination set forth in A.R.S. § 8-533 exists, and by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the child s best interest. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 280, 288, ¶¶ 1, 41, 110 P.3d 1013, 1014, 1022 (2005).4 ¶14 To terminate a parent s rights under A.R.S. § 8- 533(B)(3), the juvenile court must make two findings: (1) the parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of a history of chronic abuse of controlled substances and (2) reasonable grounds exist to believe that the abuse will continue for a prolonged and indeterminate period. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3). The record shows that the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that § 8 533(B) was satisfied in this case. ¶15 Reasonable evidence supported the court s finding that Father could not discharge his parental responsibilities because of his chronic substance abuse. Under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), the 4 Father does not contest the juvenile court s finding that termination of his parental rights was in the children s best interest. Therefore, Father has abandoned any such claim on appeal. 6 juvenile court must find that Father s ability to be an effective parent. drug use deters his Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 377, ¶ 19, 231 P.3d 377, 381 (App. 2010). The record shows that Father has been using drugs since age sixteen. children He admitted to using methamphetamine when the were removed. Despite his initial efforts to participate in the case plan, he relapsed after visiting TERROS, continued to test participating in positive drug for methamphetamine testing. Moreover, the and stopped psychologist reported that Father was not committed to a clean and sober lifestyle, had only five months of abstinence since he began to use drugs and associated with people who used drugs. The psychologist also noted that Father s drug use undermined his ability to parent and would continue for a prolonged indefinite period. ¶16 The record also supports the juvenile court s finding of reasonable grounds to believe that Father s chronic drug use will continue for a prolonged and indeterminate period. Evidence of a parent s significant history of drug use, recent drug use, and services is failure sufficient to to complete satisfy this various reunification requirement of § 8- 533(B)(3). Raymond F., 224 Ariz. at 378-79, ¶¶ 25-26, 231 P.3d at 382-83. Father has a significant history of chronic drug abuse, used he drugs recently 7 before the termination proceedings, and has failed to complete reunification services. Thus, sufficient evidence exists to find that Father s condition will continue for a prolonged and indefinite period. CONCLUSION ¶17 For these reasons, we affirm. ___/s/_________________________________ RANDALL M. HOWE, Judge CONCURRING: ___/s/_____________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge ___/s/_____________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge 8

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.