CINDY A. v. ADES, I.A.

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 CINDY A., ) ) Appellant, ) ) ) v. ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) ) SECURITY, I.A., ) Appellees. ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 9/24/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-JV 13-0076 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD22246 The Honorable Aimee L. Anderson, Judge AFFIRMED Law Office of David M. Osterfeld, L.L.C. By David M. Osterfeld Attorneys for Appellant Buckeye Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Michael F. Valenzuela, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge ¶1 Cindy A. ( Mother ) appeals the juvenile court s order terminating her parental rights to I.A. ( Child ). Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it proceeded with a hearing in her absence, and violated her right to due process when her failure to appear led the juvenile court to convert the adjudication scheduled hearing. pretrial Mother hearing also to argues a termination that reasonable evidence does not support the statutory ground for termination and that termination was not in the best interest of Child. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In early Maricopa County. 1 July 2012, Child was born to Mother in On July 19, Child Protective Services ( CPS ) took Child into temporary physical custody upon his release from the hospital unable to Department after care of for hospital staff Child. 2 Economic Five Security petition in juvenile court. protective hearing, dependency petition. agreement regarding Mother reported days ( ADES ) that later, filed Mother the a was Arizona dependency On July 31, at the preliminary denied Mother remedial and the allegations ADES services on reached August in a ADES s partial 31. On September 26, the juvenile court found Child dependent as to 1 The biological father is listed in court proceedings as John Doe and is not a party to this appeal. 2 Child was born with bilateral hip dysplasia, a condition affecting the development of the hip, and requiring Child to wear a Pavlik harness to correct the condition. As a result of his medical condition, Child had difficulty feeding. 2 Mother. The juvenile court also ratified a family reunification case plan, concurrent with an alternative case plan of severance and adoption. ¶3 Under the case plan, the juvenile court ordered Mother to attend a minimum of two supervised visits with Child per week. (1) Additionally, Mother was offered the following services: parent aide services during the scheduled twice-weekly visits with Child, (2) parenting classes, (3) counseling for domestic violence, (4) an initial substance abuse screening, (5) transportation passes, and (6) self-referral to Magellan Health Services for behavioral health. ¶4 After passing the initial drug screening and beginning remedial services, Mother s attendance flagged at parent aide services and visitation. and November 2012. Mother did not participate in October At the December 3 permanency planning and report and review hearing, the juvenile court ordered the case plan changed to only severance and adoption. ¶5 On January 7, 2013, ADES moved to terminate the parent-child relationship pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8 533(B)(8)(b) (West 2013). 3 On January 8, the juvenile court held a contested initial termination hearing. 3 We cite the current Westlaw versions of the applicable statutes unless changes material to our analysis have since occurred. 3 At that hearing, the juvenile Mother for February 14. 4 hearing and February 19. the court set mediation regarding The court also set a report and review pretrial conference regarding Mother for At the conclusion of the January 8 hearing, the juvenile court read aloud, and Mother acknowledged and signed, a copy of Form 3 providing notice that Mother could risk waiving her rights by failing to appear at future court proceedings. To accommodate Mother s hearing impairment, the juvenile court had Mother utilize special headphones when reading Form 3. ¶6 Mother failed to appear for mediation on February 14. Later that day, Mother filed a motion to appear telephonically at the February 19 hearing because she was stuck in California where her money was stolen and was unable to travel back to Arizona. On the morning of February 19, Mother called the juvenile court s chambers to explain that, although she was back in Arizona, she could because she was ill. not appear in person at the hearing At that morning s hearing, the juvenile court denied Mother s motion to appear telephonically and found no good cause for her failure to appear due to illness. counsel s objection, the juvenile court then Over converted the pretrial conference to a termination adjudication hearing, and proceeded in Mother s absence. 4 Because of service of process issues, the case concerning Father s parental rights was on a separate procedural track. 4 ¶7 At the termination adjudication hearing, the State presented multiple exhibits and the testimony of the ADES case manager regarding participation, and the the case best plan, interest Mother s of the level child. of Though Mother was absent, Mother s counsel had an opportunity to fully cross-examine the witness. After considering the evidence and the arguments of counsel, the juvenile court found that Mother has substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy the circumstances which caused this child to be in an out of home placement including participate in but not reunification limited services, to her that refusal ADES has to made reasonable efforts of reunification, and that termination is clearly in this baby s best interest and welfare. court then terminated the parent-child The juvenile relationship between Mother and Child. ¶8 On March 6, 2013, Mother filed a motion with the juvenile court to Reconsider Court s Finding of Severance on 2/19/13, and she later provided documentation of her hospital emergency room visit the morning of the February 19 hearing. On March 13, meanwhile, the juvenile court filed its signed order terminating Mother s parental rights to Child. timely appeal on March 28, 2013. Mother filed a Mother then filed a motion with this court to stay the appeal and revest jurisdiction in the juvenile court so the motion to reconsider could be heard at 5 the report and review hearing scheduled for April 19. This court granted Mother s motion to stay and revest jurisdiction, and the juvenile court heard reconsider on April 19. denied the appellate motion, on the motion to At that hearing, the juvenile court and jurisdiction argument the appeal pursuant was the to reinstated. Arizona We have Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, A.R.S. § 8-235(A), and Rule 103(A) of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. ANALYSIS ¶9 On appeal, Mother argues that the juvenile court erred when it: (1) proceeded with the February 19 hearing in her absence and converted the scheduled pretrial conference into a termination adjudication hearing in violation of her right to due process, (2) found statutory grounds for termination, and (3) found that severance was in Child s best interest. I. ¶10 Procedural Claims Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it proceeded with the February 19 hearing in her absence after failure to finding appear. that We Mother review lacked the good juvenile cause court s for her finding regarding good cause and its decision to proceed for an abuse of discretion. See Adrian E. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 215 Ariz. 96, 101, ¶ 15, 158 P.3d 225, 230 (App. 2007); Lindsey M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 212 Ariz. 43, 46, ¶ 13, 127 P.3d 6 59, 62 (App. 2006). Good cause for failing to appear includes mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect and a meritorious defense to the claims. Christy A. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 299, 304, ¶ 16, 173 P.3d 463, 468 (App. 2007). ¶11 At the February 19 hearing, the juvenile court denied mother s motion to appear telephonically. 5 The court also found that Mother had no good cause for failing to appear at the hearing after calling claiming to be sick. with the Severance illness. juvenile on the court s chambers that morning and After the hearing, Mother filed a motion court 2/19/13 on to Reconsider the basis of Court s Mother s Finding of documented The juvenile court heard oral argument on that motion on April 19 and denied it. 6 Because Mother did not move or 5 We note that Mother s subsequent return to the state by February 19 moots the issue whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her motion to appear telephonically. 6 The State argues that we lack jurisdiction to consider Mother s argument for good cause, because Mother did not appeal the juvenile court s order denying her motion to reconsider or otherwise amend the notice of appeal to include this issue. We disagree. The State had notice that the good cause issue, and the concomitant due process claim, would be raised by Mother on appeal because, on the facts of this case, this line of argument is inextricably linked to the merits of the appeal. See City of Phoenix v. Bellamy, 153 Ariz. 363, 367, 736 P.2d 1175, 1179 (App. 1987) ( The test of sufficiency of a notice of appeal is whether sufficient notice of the appeal is conveyed without misleading or prejudicing the other party. ). Furthermore, this court suspended the appeal and revested jurisdiction in the juvenile court for the express purpose of deciding the motion 7 otherwise attempt to supplement the record with a transcript of the April 19 hearing, we presume that the record supports the juvenile court s finding that Mother lacked good cause for her failure to appear. See Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec. v. Valentine, 190 Ariz. 107, 110, 945 P.2d 828, 831 (App. 1997); Maricopa County Juv. Action No. J-74449A, 20 Ariz. App. 249, 251, 511 P.2d 693, 695 (App. 1973). Therefore, the juvenile court s decision to proceed in absentia is affirmed. ¶12 Mother also argues that the juvenile court s decision to convert the pretrial conference to a termination adjudication hearing violated Mother s right to due alleged constitutional violations de novo. process. We review See State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, 159, ¶ 53, 140 P.3d 930, 942 (2006). Termination cases of involve [t]he fundamental liberty interest natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). rights are not absolute, however. These parental Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 248, ¶ 12, 995 P.2d 682, 684 (2000). A court may order severance of parental rights under certain circumstances, so long as the parents whose rights are to be severed are provided with fundamentally fair procedures that satisfy due process requirements. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 before revesting jurisdiction in this court. Juv. Ct. 103(C). 8 See Ariz. R.P. Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 24, 110 Santosky, 455 U.S. at 754). P.3d 1013, 1018 (2005) (quoting Among these requirements are notice and the opportunity to be heard. See Huck v. Haralambie, 122 Ariz. 63, 65, 593 P.2d 286, 288 (1979). ¶13 By statute, rule, and signed form, Mother had explicit notice that her rights could be waived if she failed to attend the February 19 hearing without demonstrating good cause. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 8-535(E) ( At the initial [termination] hearing, the court shall: . . . [i]nstruct the parent that the failure to appear at the pretrial conference . . . may result in an adjudication terminating the parent-child relationship as to a parent who does not appear. ). Specifically, the version of Form 3 of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court used by the juvenile court states, If you fail to attend the . . . Pre-Trial Conference . . . without good cause, the Court may determine that you have waived your legal rights and admitted the allegations in the motion or petition for termination. The hearings may go forward in your absence, and the Court may terminate your parental rights to your child based on the record and evidence presented. At the hearing on January 8, Mother read and signed a copy of Form 3. 7 Furthermore, the juvenile court termination on the basis of established case law. proceeded to See Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 205, 209 n.5, ¶ 14, 181 7 The juvenile court provided Mother special headphones to accommodate her hearing impairment so the court could properly advise Mother of her rights. 9 P.3d 1126, 1130 n.5 (App. 2008) (acknowledging the conversion of a pretrial conference to a termination hearing because of the parent s failure to appear); cf. Adrian E., 215 Ariz. at 100, ¶ 12, 158 P.3d at 229 ( Rule 64(C) implicitly authorizes the juvenile court . . . to terminate the parental rights of a parent who . . . fails to appear without good cause for a status conference on a pending motion for termination. ). Mother also had the opportunity to be heard through counsel. See Christy A., 217 Ariz. at 307, ¶ 25, 173 P.3d 463 ( In the . . . scenario where the parent fails to appear but is still represented by counsel, the court may proceed in that parent s absence because his or her rights will be protected participation of counsel. ). decision the juvenile of by the Accordingly, court to we convert presence and affirm the the pretrial conference to a termination adjudication hearing after Mother failed to appear for the February 19 hearing. II. ¶14 Terminating Parental Rights Mother argues that the juvenile court erred when it terminated her parental rights to Child. We will not disturb the juvenile court s order severing parental rights unless its findings are clearly erroneous, meaning no reasonable evidence supports them. Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 2, 982 P.2d 1290, 1291 (App. 1998). To terminate parental rights pursuant to A.R.S. § 8 533(B)(8)(b), a juvenile 10 court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that a parent substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy the circumstances that caused the out-of-home placement greater than six months for a child less than three years old and that ADES has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services. See Marina P. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 326, 329, ¶ 18, 152 P.3d 1209, 1212 (App. 2007). The court also must find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the child. A. ¶15 Id. Termination Pursuant to A.R.S. § 8 533(B)(8)(b) Mother argues that the juvenile court erred because reasonable evidence does not support the finding that Mother had substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy the circumstances that caused Child s out-of-home placement for more than six months. Mother also appears to argue that ADES did not make a diligent effort to provide reunification services. ¶16 To terminate parental rights pursuant to A.R.S. § 8- 533(B)(8)(b), the State must have provided sufficient evidence at the termination adjudication hearing that a child under three years of age has been in an out-of-home placement for six months or more pursuant to a court order, 8 that ADES has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services, 8 Mother does not contest that Child has been in a foster home for longer than six months pursuant to a court order. 11 and that the parent has substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement, including refusal to participate in reunification services offered by ADES. A.R.S. § 8- 533(B)(8)(b). ¶17 At the February 19 hearing, the State provided evidence that ADES offered Mother the following services: (1) three urinalyses to screen for drugs, (2) parent aide services in the form of twice-weekly one-on-one sessions for parenting skills at the same time as Mother s scheduled visits with Child, (3) a psychological consultation and evaluation, (4) domestic violence counseling, health services. (5) transportation, and (6) behavioral ADES also offered to arrange for Mother to attend Child s medical appointments. ¶18 Nonetheless, reunification services Mother were appears deficient to contend because ADES that the did not provide her with specialized medical training to help her take care of services Child s to medical compensate problems for her or unidentified hearing problem. additional Although [ADES] need not provide every conceivable service, it must provide a parent with the time and opportunity to participate in programs designed to improve the parent s ability to care for the child. Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185, 192, ¶ 37, 971 P.2d 1046, 1053 (App. 1999) (quoting 12 Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS 501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353, 884 P.2d 234, 239 (App. 1994)). At the February 19 hearing, the State provided evidence that the parent aide assigned to Mother had training to meet Child s medical needs. The ADES case manager also testified that Mother s hearing impairment did not affect the nature or level of her participation. Given this testimony, coupled with the evidence of the services provided, we conclude court s that finding reasonable that ADES evidence made a supports diligent the effort to juvenile provide reunification services. ¶19 Mother also argues that she did participate in the offered services, particularly the initial urinalysis screening and visitation Child s removal. and parental aide services immediately after Although the parent who makes appreciable, good faith efforts to comply with remedial programs outlined by ADES generally will not have her rights terminated, the parent who disappears for months at a time and makes only sporadic, aborted attempts to remedy the circumstances of the child s out-of-home placement may face termination of her rights. Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 571, 576, 869 P.2d 1224, 1229 (App. 1994). those who have completely remedy such circumstances. Termination is not limited to neglected Id. 13 or willfully refused to ¶20 At evidence the February regarding 19 hearing, Mother s reunification services. level the of State participation testified January 24 that to in the in The ADES case manager testified that Mother completed the initial drug screening. also presented October February and 19 November hearing, The case manager 2012, and from Mother did not participate in the parent aide services and twice-weekly visits with Child; however, Mother did participate in those services in December 2012. not know if The case manager further testified that she did Mother participated in the scheduled February 5 psychological evaluation, and that although ADES offered Mother domestic violence counseling, at the time of the February 19 hearing those services had not started. Although ADES did not verify Mother s attendance at the psychological evaluation or begin domestic violence counseling, reasonable evidence of Mother s nearly three-month absence from visitation and parent aide services supports the finding that Mother had substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy the circumstances that caused Child s out-of-home placement. Therefore, we will not disturb the findings of the juvenile court. B. ¶21 Best Interest Mother argues that severing her parental rights is not in the best interest of Child. court must find, by a To effectuate severance, the preponderance 14 of the evidence, that termination is in the child s best interest. Kent K., 210 Ariz. determination of at the 284, ¶ child s 22, 110 best A.R.S. § 8 533(B); P.3d at interest 1018. must [A] include a finding as to how the child would benefit from a severance or be harmed by the continuation of the relationship. Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS 500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5, 804 P.2d 730, 734 (1990). Factors considered are whether: 1) an adoptive placement is immediately available; 2) the existing placement is meeting the needs adoptable. 373, 379, of the child; and 3) the [child is] Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. ¶ 30, 231 P.3d 377, 383 (App. 2010) (citations omitted). ¶22 At the February 19 hearing, the ADES case manager testified that Mother had not learned to meet either Child s basic needs or Child s specific medical needs. The ADES case manager further testified that Child was in a foster home for medically fragile children and that the foster parents were willing and able to adopt him, even though Child has special medical needs. As a result, the juvenile court found that [t]he child is adoptable and adoption will provide [him] with permanency and stability. A termination rights would further the plan of adoption. found that the State had proven by a of these parental The juvenile court preponderance of the evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship was 15 in the best interest of Child. Because reasonable evidence supports the juvenile court s findings, we will not disturb the findings of the juvenile court. CONCLUSION ¶23 We affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate Mother s parental rights. __________________/S/__________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: _____________/S/___________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge ____________/S/____________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 16

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.