Jennica H. 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 JENNICA H., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, J.W., K.W., Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/24/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-JV 10-0003 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD507183 The Honorable David K. Udall, Judge AFFIRMED Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney Attorney for Appellant Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Amanda Holguin, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellees B A R K E R, Judge Phoenix Mesa ¶1 Appellant Jennica H. ( Mother ) appeals the juvenile court s order Daughter. terminating her parental rights to Son and Finding no error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History ¶2 a On March 21, 2008, Child Protective Services ( CPS ), division of the Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ), received a dependency petition on behalf of Son, age two, and Daughter, age five, alleging Mother abandons the children with their grandmother while she goes on drug binges and does not care for the children when she is home. 1 An investigation by CPS revealed that Son and Daughter had been living in the home of their maternal grandmother since 2005. late 2007, grandmother Mother left on impulse an Son and while Daughter Mother with went the to In maternal California. According to the maternal grandmother, Mother comes and goes sporadically, only to eat and sleep and does not provide [] care or protection for the children. Mother had a history of drug abuse and began using when she was seventeen years old. ¶3 The children were taken into CPS custody on March 24, 2008. The maternal grandmother did not know where Mother was 1 The dependency petition also alleged the children were dependent as to Father. The children were found dependent as to Father, and his parental rights were subsequently severed by the juvenile court. Father s parental rights are not at issue in this appeal. 2 living, and CPS could not initially locate Mother. Mother, however, was served and aware of the dependency hearing. After Mother failed to appear at the dependency hearing on June 4, 2008, the juvenile court found Son and Daughter dependent as to Mother. The case plan was set as family reunification, and Mother was offered services and visitation with the children. Mother failed to comply with the services required to reunite with Son and visitations Daughter. with the Mother children attended in July three 2008 and scheduled made an unauthorized visit with the children in September 2008 but then failed to visit the children again. ¶4 On August 7, 2009, ADES filed a petition to terminate Mother s parental rights to Son and Daughter. Following a one- day trial, the juvenile court severed Mother s parental rights because she (1) abandoned Son and Daughter pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-533(B)(1) (Supp. 2009) and (2) failed Daughter s to remedy out-of-home the circumstances placement for causing nine months Son s or and longer pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(a) and for fifteen months or longer pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). found severance was in Son s and The juvenile court Daughter s best interests. Mother timely filed a notice of appeal. ¶5 We have jurisdiction pursuant to (2007), 12-120.21 (2003), and 12-2101(B) (2003). 3 A.R.S. §§ 8-235 Discussion ¶6 We view the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court s order. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 13, 53 P.3d 203, 207 (App. 2002). Severance of parental rights is proper when (1) clear and convincing evidence proves a statutory ground for termination and (2) a preponderance of the evidence shows severance is in the best interests of the children. Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445, 449, ¶ 12, 153 P.3d 1074, 1078 (App. 2007). We review the juvenile court s order for an abuse of discretion and reverse when no reasonable evidence supports the court s factual findings. Id. at 451, ¶ 19, 153 P.3d at 1080; see also Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92, 93, ¶ 3, 210 P.3d 1263, 1264 (App. 2009). ¶7 Mother determination. its does challenge the best interests Instead, Mother argues the juvenile court abused discretion court s not finding because that insufficient Mother abandoned evidence Son and supports the Daughter. In particular, Mother contends she provided care for her children by leaving them in the care of their maternal grandmother. Mother further asserts that she dealt with her past drug abuse and emotional problems that caused her poor relationship with Son and Daughter and that these 4 conditions do not prevent [Mother] from having a normal parental relationship with her children now or in the future. We disagree and find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court s finding of abandonment. ¶8 A juvenile court can terminate the parent-child relationship when the parent has abandoned the child. § 8-533(B)(1). A.R.S. Abandonment is defined as: [T]he failure of a parent to provide reasonable support and to maintain regular contact with the child, including providing normal supervision. Abandonment includes a judicial finding that a parent has made only minimal efforts to support and communicate with the child. Failure to maintain a normal parental relationship with the child without just cause for a period of six months constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment. Id. § 8-531(1) (2007). regular case. contact, Pima and County What constitutes reasonable support, normal Juv. supervision Severance varies Action Ariz. 86, 96, 876 P.2d 1121, 1131 (1994). No. from case S-114487, to 179 The juvenile court determines abandonment by reviewing the parent s conduct and not the parent s subjective intent. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249-50, ¶ 18, 995 P.2d 682, 685-86 (2000). ¶9 Mother grandmother California left in 2007 for four Son on and an Daughter impulse months. Due 5 to so with she medical the maternal could and go to financial issues, the maternal grandmother could no longer care for the children and placed them in the care of close friends, who subsequently filed the dependency petition on behalf of Son and Daughter. Two weeks after the children came into CPS custody in March 2008, Mother quit her job and began using methamphetamine. Mother first seventeen started years old using and methamphetamine admitted to using when she was methamphetamine throughout the CPS case until she checked herself into a drug treatment program in October 2009. At trial, Mother acknowledged that [she] never wanted to lose [her] kids, but [she] had an addiction [she] had to feed. Despite conducting two manager parent locate searches, the CPS case could not locate Mother, and her whereabouts were unknown for the entirety of the case until Mother started the drug treatment program. Mother admitted that she lived on the streets from October 2008 until entering the drug treatment program in October 2009. Mother never provided CPS with proof of employment. ¶10 Although Mother participated in supervised visits in July 2008 and one unauthorized visit in September 2008, Mother did not visit Son and Daughter again. Mother s visitation program referral was closed after Mother failed to attend three supervised visitations scheduled in October 2008. At the time of trial, Mother had not seen or communicated with the children in fourteen months. Since September 2008, Mother made no effort 6 to support or communicate with Son and Daughter; Mother never sent gifts, letters, or cards to the children; and Mother never telephoned them. ¶11 Mother treatment places program and emphasis on indicates her she success can now parental relationship with Son and Daughter. in have the a drug normal At trial, Mother had been clean of drugs and alcohol for eight weeks and intended to complete the drug treatment program in August 2010. Mother s success fourteen-month is encouraging, failure to have this does regular not contact Although excuse with Son her and Daughter. In the two months Mother was clean, she made no effort contact to juvenile court Son and not abuse did Daughter. its On this discretion record, when it the severed Mother s parental rights for abandoning Son and Daughter. We need not address Mother s additional arguments that severance was inappropriate because proof of pursuant only one to A.R.S. statutory § 8-533(B)(8)(a), ground needed to uphold the juvenile court s order. for severance (c) is A.R.S. § 8-533(B) (stating termination of the parent-child relationship is proper when sufficient evidence proves any one of the statutory grounds for termination). Conclusion ¶12 permanent We do not separation take of lightly Mother 7 our from role her in affirming children. In the re Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 571, 579-80 869 P.2d 1224, 1232-33 (App. 1994). destructive toll inflicted on children, society by those who abuse drugs. 1233. However, we acknowledge the families, and our Id. at 580, 869 P.2d at Deference to the rights of parents can be superseded by the substantial interest in protecting innocent children. Id. Individuals who are unwilling or unable, due to drug addiction, to perform their parental rights. parental Id. responsibilities may lose their For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court s termination of Mother s parental rights. /s/ __________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ DONN KESSLER, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge 8

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.