Cecelia E. v. ADES, Bob M.

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 CECELIA E., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, BOB M., Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 06-22-010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-JV 10-0013 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G) Ariz.R.P. Juv. Ct.; Rule 28 ARCAP Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD506871 The Honorable Mark F. Aceto, Judge AFFIRMED Sandra L. Massetto Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Eric Devany, Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Arizona Department of Economic Security Mesa G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 Cecelia E. appeals the juvenile court s order terminating her parental rights to her son, Bob M.1 For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 On November 22, 2002, Cecelia gave birth to Bob. June 2007, Cecelia was incarcerated. of her friend house. ( Friend ), who In She left Bob in the care lived with them at Cecelia s Bob and Friend continued to live at Cecelia s house until the house was destroyed by a fire. As a result of the fire, Friend and Bob moved into another house. ¶3 On August 9, 2007, Child Protective Services ( CPS ) removed Bob from the house due to health and safety hazards and placed Bob in a foster home. The house Bob was removed from was reported as filthy, with no utilities, and drug activity. On August 15, 2007, the Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) filed a dependency petition with the juvenile court. The court gave ADES dependency hearing. temporary custody of Bob, pending a Cecelia was released from jail on August 27, 2007. ¶4 attend On October mediation 30, with 2007, ADES. the court During the agreed to submit to substance abuse testing. 1 ordered Cecelia mediation, to Cecelia Specifically, she The court also terminated the parental rights of Bob s father, Charles M., based on abandonment pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-533(B)(1) (Supp. 2009). Charles is not a party to this appeal. 2 agreed to submit four clean urinalysis tests. 2008 the court held a pretrial conference On January 8, hearing. At the hearing, ADES requested that the dependency hearing be continued to allow Cecelia to submit 4 clean urinalysis tests and proof of residence and employment. The state anticipated that it would request the dependency petition be dismissed if Cecelia could submit four clean urinalysis tests. ¶5 On February 26, 2008, the court held another hearing. At the time of the hearing, Cecilia had submitted only one urine sample and it was negative. As a result, the court found Bob dependent as to Cecelia and approved an in-home dependency, giving Cecelia physical custody of Bob. Cecelia, however, went back to jail a couple of days later and was not released until May 2008. By June 2008, physical custody was taken away from Cecelia, and Bob was again placed in foster care. ¶6 Over the next several months, ADES made reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan that would reunite Cecelia and Bob. During that time, the court ordered Cecelia to provide four consecutive clean urinalysis tests but Cecelia failed to comply with the court s orders. held a permanency planning On March 3, 2009, the court hearing and ordered Cecelia to complete a urinalysis and a hair follicle drug test that day. Again, Cecelia failed to follow the court s orders. On June 30, 2009, the court changed the case plan to severance and adoption 3 and ordered Cecelia to [urinalysis] testing two Cecelia submitted to do a hair times the follicle per ordered test month. testing, begin July In and 2009, which came back positive for methamphetamines. ¶7 On December severance hearing. 1, 2009, the court held a contested At the hearing, the court heard testimony from CPS case manager, Jessica Nokes. Nokes recommended that the court terminate Cecelia s parental rights so that Bob could be adopted by a family who would provide Bob with stability. She testified that Bob was adoptable, and she did not believe ADES would have any trouble finding Bob an adoptive placement. ¶8 On January 7, 2010, the court entered an order terminating Cecelia s parental rights to Bob pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-533(B)(3) and (B)(8)(c). The court found termination of Cecelia s parental rights was in Bob s best interest because it would further permanency and the plan of stability. adoption The court and also provide found Bob Bob with to be adoptable. ¶9 Cecelia appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(B) (2003). ANALYSIS ¶10 Cecelia does not challenge the court s regarding the statutory grounds for termination. findings She challenges only the court s finding that termination of Cecelia s parental 4 rights was in Bob s best interest. On appeal, we will accept the fact juvenile court's findings of unless no reasonable evidence supports those findings, and we will affirm a severance order unless it is clearly erroneous. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002). ¶11 Termination of parental rights must be in the best interests of the child. termination of interests, ADES A.R.S. § 8-533(B). parental must rights present would credible be To prove that the in a evidence child's best demonstrating how the child would benefit from a severance or be harmed by the continuation of the relationship. Lawrence R. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 585, 587, ¶ 8, 177 P.3d 327, 329 (App. 2008) (quoting Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 50, ¶ 19, 83 P.3d 43, 50 (App.2004)). The best interest requirement may be satisfied if ADES shows that the child is adoptable. Lawrence R., 217 Ariz. at 587, ¶ 8, 177 P.3d at 329. ¶12 In this case, reasonable evidence supports the court s finding that termination of Cecelia s parental rights was in Bob s best interest. Jessica Nokes, the CPS case worker who was assigned to the case in September 2007, testified that severance and adoption were in Bob s best interest. She recommended that Cecelia s parental rights be terminated so that Bob can be 5 adopted by [a] family who will provide stability, permanency, love and take him you know, provide him with all the medical care that he needs and requires and follow up with services for him. She also testified that Bob was adoptable and that ADES would not have any trouble finding an adoptive placement for Bob. ¶13 On this record, we conclude that sufficient evidence exists to support the juvenile court s finding that severance of Cecelia s parental rights is in Bob s best interest. CONCLUSION ¶14 The court s severance order is affirmed as to Cecelia. _____/s/_________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: _____/s/_________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge _____/s/_________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge 6

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.