Melissa J 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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MELISSA J., DIVISION ONE FILED: 01/03/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-JV 11-0128 Appellant, DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, NOEL A., JOHN J., Appellees. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD 18774 The Honorable Christopher A. Coury, Judge AFFIRMED David W. Bell Attorney for Appellant Mesa Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Jamie R. Katelman, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellees Phoenix I R V I N E, Judge ¶1 Melissa J. ( Mother ) appeals from the juvenile court s order severing her parental rights to her sons Noel A. and John J. (the Children ). 1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 of Mother was born in August 1979 and has a long history substance abuse. She began using alcohol at age fifteen, marijuana at eighteen, and methamphetamine at twenty-five. The Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) became involved with Mother after Noel was born substance exposed to marijuana in July 2006. ADES provided Mother with services to address her substance-abuse problems. Mother admits that she did not participate in those services. Three years later, Mother gave birth to John. At birth, John tested positive for marijuana, and Mother tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine. ¶3 In January 2010, ADES filed a dependency petition. The juvenile court granted the petition a month later. As part of the reunification process, ADES required Mother to submit to drug testing and treatment. Mother admits that she did not comply with the required drug testing because she was in denial about her substance-abuse problems. From February 2010 through November 2010, Mother participated in an outpatient substanceabuse treatment program. Mother testified that from January 2010 through November 2010, she did not use drugs. Mother admits, 1 The Fathers parental rights were also terminated, but they are not parties to this appeal. 2 however, that she was incarcerated from June 2010 to September 2010 for theft. Mother also admits that she relapsed and began using marijuana and methamphetamine from November 2010 through March 2011. ¶4 In March 2011, ADES filed a petition to terminate Mother s parental rights to the Children. The juvenile court held a contested severance hearing on ADES s motion to terminate in June 2011. Mother testified at the hearing that she had been sober for the past three months. After taking the matter under advisement, the court granted ADES s motion to terminate Mother s parental rights to the Children. ¶5 The juvenile court found that termination was in the Children s best interests and that grounds for severance existed pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8- 533(B)(3) (Supp. 2010) because there was clear and convincing evidence that responsibilities Mother was because of unable a to history discharge of her chronic parental abuse of dangerous drugs, and there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mother will continue to have a substance-abuse problem for a prolonged indeterminate period. The juvenile court also found that grounds for severance existed pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533 (B)(8)(c) because the Children were being cared for in an outof-home placement for a total period of fifteen months pursuant 3 to court order, and Mother had been unable to remedy her substance-abuse issues. ¶6 Mother timely appeals. DISCUSSION ¶7 Mother argues that her drug use does not render her unable to discharge her parental responsibilities and that there are not reasonable grounds to believe that her drug use will continue for a prolonged indeterminate period. Mother also disputes the juvenile court s finding that severance was in the best interests of the Children. ¶8 findings. Reasonable Despite substance-abuse evidence periods treatment supports the of compliance and counseling, juvenile with drug Mother court s testing, consistently missed appointments and failed to follow through with available services. Even marijuana, after continued Mother using Noel was refused marijuana born substance substance-abuse and exposed treatment methamphetamine. Mother to and used marijuana and methamphetamine for the next three years before giving birth to John, who was also born substance exposed to marijuana. After the Children were taken into ADES custody, Mother continued to use drugs and failed to submit to required drug testing. ¶9 We also find no support for Mother s argument that the juvenile court abused its discretion 4 when it found that severance was in the Children s best interests. Although the Children may have had a strong bond with Mother, Mother s drug use continued to place the children at risk of harm. The case manager opined that it was not in the Children s best interests to wait and see how Mother progressed with her substance-abuse treatment. safe, Additionally, stable, drug-free the home maternal grandmother for Children the provided for more a than fifteen months, and she was willing to adopt the Children. ¶10 Mother also argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion pursuant in to finding A.R.S. § that 8-533 grounds (B)(8)(c). for severance Because we existed affirm the juvenile court s findings under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), we need not address this argument. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 12, 995 P.2d 682, 685 (2000). CONCLUSION ¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court s termination of Mother s parental rights to the Children. /s/ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge /s/ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge 5
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.
