Rodrigo B v. ADES/Adilene C

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 RODRIGO B., DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/02/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-JV 11-0170 Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, ADILENE C., GIOVANI C., BETSY B., RODRIGO C., and LORENA B. DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz.R.P.Juv.Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appellees. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD 16271 The Honorable Aimee L. Anderson, Judge AFFIRMED Christina Phillis, Maricopa County Public Advocate By Suzanne Sanchez, Deputy Public Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By David M. Osterfeld, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellees Mesa Phoenix W I N T H R O P, Chief Judge ¶1 Rodrigo B. ( Father ) appeals the juvenile court s order severing his parental rights to five children: A.C., G.C., B.B., R.C. and L.B. (collectively, the children ). Because reasonable evidence supports severance based on cumulative outof-home placement of fifteen months or more pursuant to court order, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 time The four oldest children, all less than age ten at the of severance, came to the attention of the Arizona Department of Economic Services ( ADES ) in May 2007, when R.C. was born exposed to cocaine. offered reported family preservation incidents of ADES monitored the situation and services. domestic The violence biological and told mother ADES that Father brought home drugs and pressured her to use them with him. 1 cocaine. Random drug testing confirmed that Father was using In September 2007, Father agreed with ADES to leave the home and continue services. Other than an initial TERROS intake, comply however, other services. Father did not with drug testing or Several weeks later, Father moved back home, in violation of his agreement with ADES. ¶3 In November 2007, the mother was arrested and later deported to Mexico. In December 1 2007, ADES took temporary In April 2011, the biological mother s parental rights to the children were severed. She did not appeal that order and is not party to this case. 2 custody of petition the four ( first oldest children dependency ). and filed Although a dependency Father initially complied with some services, he did not submit to random drug testing or substance-abuse counseling. After May 2008, Father stopped participating in services altogether. ¶4 Father did not contact ADES about the children again until January 2010. arrested in June police officer. ADES later learned that Father had been 2008, for an extreme DUI and assaulting a Father served a year-long prison sentence and was deported to Mexico in April 2009. He re-entered the country illegally the next month and was immediately detained. ¶5 While in Mexico, Father and the mother had given birth to a fifth child, L.B., in August 2008. The biological mother returned to Arizona and resumed services to reunite with the four oldest children. regained physical completed In September and October 2009, the mother custody services, and of the them. first The mother dependency successfully against both biological parents was dismissed in December 2009. ¶6 mother About two weeks later, ADES received a report that the had been arrested on an giving police a false identity. outstanding warrant and for On January 7, 2010, ADES filed a new dependency petition ( second dependency ), alleging that all five children had been left with two male strangers without any provision for food, clothing or shelter. 3 The trial court ordered that the children be returned to ADES s custody. placed the children in the same foster home from the ADES first dependency, where they have remained since. ¶7 In January 2010, about eighteen months after his last contact, Father called ADES from an immigration detention center in Florence. children Through ADES, Father began writing a letter to the about once every month. Father pled guilty to illegally entering the country and was transferred to a federal prison in Illinois to serve a thirty-two-month sentence. He remained incarcerated there for the rest of these proceedings. ¶8 After a separate contested hearing in June and July 2011, the juvenile court ordered Father s parental relationship with the children terminated based on abandonment under Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-533(B)(1) 2012); 2 (West length of incarceration under § 8-533(B)(4); and cumulative outof-home placement for Because the oldest four fifteen months children under were § 8-533(B)(8)(C). involved in a prior dependency, the court also severed Father s parental rights to them based on A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(11) (prior dependency). ¶9 Father has timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-235(A). 2 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 4 Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by severing his parental rights to the children based on each of the four statutory grounds. ¶10 We disagree. The juvenile court may sever a parental relationship based on clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground enumerated in A.R.S. § 8-533(B). Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 12, 995 P.2d 682, 685 (2000). In addition, preponderance of the the juvenile evidence that children s best interests. 284, ¶ 22, severance 110 order P.3d must severance find will by serve a the Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 1013, unless court 1018 there (2005). is no We will reasonable support the juvenile court s findings. affirm evidence a to Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 78-79, ¶ 9, 41 P.3d 614, 616-17 (App. 2001). ¶11 Under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(b), Father s parental rights could be terminated upon a showing that (1) the children were in an out-of-home placement for fifteen months or longer; (2) ADES had reunification made diligent services; (3) efforts Father to was provide unable to appropriate remedy the circumstances causing the children s placement; (4) there was a substantial likelihood that Father would not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near future; and (5) severance 5 was in the children s best interests. Because Father does not challenge the finding that severance was in the children s best interests, we accept that finding and do not consider the issue further. ¶12 There is no dispute that the children were placed in foster care pursuant to court order for a cumulative period of over fifteen months. Father appears to argue, however, that ADES caused the out-of-home placement by failing to place the children with a paternal uncle who had been approved by the United States and Mexican governments for foster placement. We disagree. ¶13 The juvenile court ordered the children removed from Father s custody because of his substance abuse, domestic violence against the mother, abandonment of the children, and incarceration. with the Regardless of whether the children were placed foster incarceration, parents the failed Father or to paternal remedy uncle, these other than circumstances, requiring continued out-of-home care. ¶14 Nevertheless, ADES acted properly with regard Father s requests to place the children with his family. the child psychologist s recommendation, ADES to Upon sought to establish contact and build a relationship between the paternal uncle and the children. ADES then requested that The uncle called the children twice. the uncle send cards, letters or pictures of the home, town and school, so that the children 6 could learn what their home would look like. This request was reasonable report in light of the psychologist s that the children would be uncomfortable moving to Mexico without further communication respond, from ADES the was uncle. unable to Because proceed the with uncle did placement. not Upon Father s request, ADES contacted the Mexican consulate about his mother for foster placement, but she also did not respond. The family s failure to follow through with the placement process should not be attributed to ADES. ¶15 efforts Finally, to the provide record shows services, that including ADES made diligent drug treatment and testing, parenting classes, supervised visits and psychological evaluations. Although he does not dispute this finding, Father argues that the trial court should have waited two months for him to be released from prison so that he could participate in reunification services. To the extent Father challenges the juvenile court s finding that he will not likely be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care in the near future, we also find no error. ¶16 Father prison. Services would have been difficult to provide because was to be immediately deported upon his release from While Father stated that he is willing to participate in social services in Mexico, he did not do so during the first dependency proceedings. 7 ¶17 after that Even assuming that reunification services were offered Father s it release would participation take before from another ADES prison, nine could to even the caseworker twelve months recommend testified of full reunification. Given Father s history of inconsistent or lack of participation with services, unresolved allegations of drug abuse and illegal activity, the caseworker did not believe Father could maintain sobriety or complete the other services. She thus opined that the children would be damaged by delaying permanency by a year or substantially longer without any likelihood of success. On this record, the juvenile court correctly determined that there is a substantial likelihood that Father would not be able to provide proper and effective parental care in the near future. ¶18 We find no error based on the out-of-home placement of the children for a cumulative period of fifteen or more months under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). Accordingly, we need not consider whether severance was justified on the other statutory grounds. Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 251, ¶ 27, 995 P.2d at 687. 8 CONCLUSION ¶19 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. __________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Chief Judge CONCURRING: ___________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge ___________________________________ DONN KESSLER, Judge 9

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.