ADES v. HON. RYAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. RYAN, ) Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF ) THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for ) the County of MARICOPA, ) ) Respondent Judge, ) ) CHRISTINE P.-C., FRANK C., and ) K.C., ) ) Real Parties in Interest. ) __________________________________) The petition court, filed having by No. 1 CA-SA 12-0259 DEPARTMENT A Maricopa County Superior Court No. FC2010-090018 DECISION ORDER considered the Arizona DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/13/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt the special Department of action Economic Security ( ADES ), the response by Frank C. ( Father ), and ADES s reply, as well as the appendices filed by the parties, accepts jurisdiction and grants relief in part. ADES is the legal custodian of the minor child, K.C. 1 By order filed November 1, 2012, the juvenile court continued K.C. as a ward of the court, committed to the care, custody and control of ADES. 1 We amend the caption to refer to the child by her initials. On November 9, 2012, ADES filed a motion to intervene in the family court proceedings for the limited purpose of addressing visitation and future custody orders time that ADES is the child s legal custodian. for the The family court denied ADES s motion. As the child s legal custodian, ADES is entitled to intervene in the family court proceedings regarding custody and parenting time. to be heard See, e.g., Ariz. R. Fam. L.P. 33(D) ( Upon timely application, the court may allow a third party to intervene in an action if necessary for the exercise of the court s authority . . . . ). Although the language of the rule is permissive, when ADES is a child s legal custodian, as opposed to the parents, ADES should not be denied the right to be heard regarding custody and visitation orders relating to its ward. Additionally, the record suggests the need for a more coordinated approach juvenile court. 2 between the family court and the Although we enter no specific orders in this regard, we note that orders of the juvenile court take precedence over those of the family court. Stat. 2 § 8-202(F) (orders of the See Ariz. Rev. juvenile court in A different panel of this court recently issued a memorandum decision affirming a finding of dependency as to Father based on an earlier dependency petition alleging sexual abuse. Frank C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 1 CAJV 12-0078, 2012 WL 5208790 (Ariz. App. Oct. 23, 2012) (mem. decision). The court held that reasonable evidence supported the juvenile court s finding that Father had sexually abused K.C. Id. at *5, ¶ 23. 2 dependency cases take precedence over any order of any other court of this state except the court of appeals and the supreme court ). We grant relief to ADES, in part, by directing the family court proceedings. restricting until ADES to permit ADES to intervene in its We also continue our stay order in effect, Father has to been supervised allowed to visitation intervene with and K.C., the court holds further proceedings regarding custody and visitation at which ADES is present. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to the usual mailings, a copy of this order shall be sent to Honorable James Beene. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Chief Judge 3 the
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.
