Daniel F. 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. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DANIEL F., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, D.F., J.F., Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 07-15-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-JV 09-0191 1 CA-JV 09-0201 (Consolidated) DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz.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 Nos. JD17052, JS11317 The Honorable Cathy M. Holt, Retired Judge AFFIRMED Popilek & Jones PA By John L. Popilek Attorneys for Appellant Scottsdale Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Carol A. Salvati, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellees Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 court s Daniel order daughters, F. ( Father ) terminating D.F. and J.F. his On timely parental appeal, appeals the relationship Father juvenile with his challenges the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence to terminate his rights. 1 parental Because the factual findings made by the juvenile court were supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the court s termination order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 On July 29, investigate allegations patrol parked 2008, car police came he was sexually across the street to Father s abusing from home D.F. the to In home, a D.F. described the abuse to a female officer and the girls were taken into temporary physical custody. The Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) filed a dependency petition on August 4, 2008, and a petition for termination on April 8, 2009, alleging Father ha[d] not addressed his sexual abuse problem. An 11 day adjudication hearing on both petitions began July 8, 2009, and ended on September 22, 2009. ¶3 At trial, the juvenile court heard testimony from the female officer, Father, two of the girls therapists, the woman who worked in their home who was 1 largely responsible for Father also appeals the juvenile court s order finding D.F. and J.F. dependent as to him under Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-201(13)(iii) (Supp. 2009). Because the basis for the court s termination of Father s parental rights was the same for finding his daughters dependent, and because we affirm the juvenile court s termination order, the dependency appeal is moot. And, even if not moot, the evidence presented amply supported the juvenile court s dependency order, the reasoning of which was virtually identical to the court s termination order. 2 reporting the abuse, a family nurse practitioner who conducted a medical examination of D.F., the detective assigned to the case, a nurse practitioner who diagnosed D.F. with post-traumatic stress disorder, the Child Protective Services case manager, and 11 witnesses for Father. court found ADES had Based on the evidence presented, the shown by clear and convincing evidence Father sexually abused D.F. and physically abused both girls, constituting grounds for termination of under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) (Supp. 2009). his parental rights The court also found by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of Father s parental rights was in the best interests of D.F. and J.F. DISCUSSION ¶4 We will not disturb the juvenile court s decision to terminate parental rights unless the court abused its discretion or its findings were clearly erroneous. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8, 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App. 2004) (quoting Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-132905, 186 Ariz. 607, 609, 925 P.2d 748, 750 (App. 1996)). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to affirming the judgment, Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92, 95, ¶ 10, 210 P.3d 1263, 1266 (App. 2009), and as the trier of fact in a termination proceeding, the juvenile court is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts. 3 Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, __, ¶ 18, 219 P.3d 296, 303 (App. 2009) (quoting Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4, 100 P.3d 943, 945 (App. 2004)). ¶5 The juvenile court relationship upon finding that demonstrates a statutory may sever clear ground and for the parent-child convincing severance, evidence and a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates severance is in the best interests of the child. Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, __, ¶ 15, 231 P.3d 377, 381 (App. 2010); see A.R.S. § 8-533(B). Under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2), the juvenile court is authorized to terminate parental rights if a parent has neglected or wilfully abused a child. This abuse includes serious physical or emotional injury. ¶6 not Father supported disagree; findings the of contends by the significant court s findings abuse were We or reliable evidence. 2 court s record supports the juvenile Father s physical and sexual physical abuse of J.F. of abuse of detailed D.F. and The court found the girls accounts of abuse by Father were, as presented through ADES s witnesses, 2 Father also contends he was denied due process because ADES did not provide notice it would argue Father had emotionally abused the girls. We decline to address this argument because the record contains ample evidence supporting the juvenile court s factual findings of physical and sexual abuse. 4 detailed, substantially The noted court Father s consistent, arguments evidence or simply not credible. and extremely credible. were without substantive Thus, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found Father had abused the girls and severance was in their best interests. CONCLUSION ¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court s termination order. /s/ __________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge /s/ ____________________________________ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Chief 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.