Coreen B. 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 COREEN B., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, COLETTE C., CELINA C., ) CARTER B., ) ) Appellees. ) ) __________________________________) 1 CA-JV 10-0042 DIVISION ONE FILED: 08-03-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G), Ariz.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. JD17699 The Honorable Jo Lynn Gentry-Lewis, Judge AFFIRMED Virginia Matte, Esq. Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Terry Goddard, Attorney General Phoenix by Carol A. Salvati, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Coreen B. ( Mother ) appeals the termination of her parental rights to reasons, we affirm. her three children. For the following FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Child Protective Services ( CPS ) took temporary custody of Mother s two daughters on January 20, 2009, and her son on January 22, 2009, after investigating a report that the children had been neglected. Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) filed a dependency petition soon thereafter alleging that Mother was unable to parent the children due to substance abuse, neglect, and mental instability. ¶3 The dependent juvenile and court approved the subsequently family found the reunification children case plan. Mother was offered reunification services from ADES, including parent-aide services, substance abuse assessment and treatment, consultation supervised with a psychologist, visitation, urinalysis testing. a assistance psychological with evaluation, transportation, and Mother failed to participate substantially in services for the first seven months. ¶4 After the permanency hearing, ADES filed its original motion to terminate the parent-child relationship between Mother and her son on July 2, 2009, with subsequent amendments. similar motion was filed to terminate the A parent-child relationship between Mother and her two daughters on September 23, 2009, with no further amendments. ¶5 After the severance trial, the juvenile court found that ADES had demonstrated a statutory basis for severance by 2 clear and convincing children s best Mother s evidence interest; parental and as rights a to that severance result, her the three was court in the terminated children. Mother appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 8-235 (2007), 12-120.21(A)(1), and -2101(B) (2003). DISCUSSION ¶6 Before terminating parental rights, a juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one statutory basis for termination. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22, 110 P.3d 1013, 1018 (2005). The court must also find that the termination is in the best interests of the child by a preponderance severance order, we of the view evidence. the Id. evidence favorable to sustaining the order. in In reviewing the light a most See Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-8490, 179 Ariz. 102, 106, 876 P.2d 1137, 1141 (1994). [W]e will affirm a severance order unless it is clearly erroneous, and we will accept the juvenile court s findings of fact unless no reasonable evidence supports those findings. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002). ¶7 children, The juvenile court found that Mother had abandoned her had a history of substance abuse, and that the children were out of her care for nine months, in addition to 3 the finding of out-of-home placement for six months with respect to her son. her history eleven. the Mother challenges the finding of abandonment 1 and of substance abuse, which started when she was She, however, does not challenge the determination that children have been out of her care 533(B)(8)(a) and (B)(8)(b) (Supp. 2009). under A.R.S. § 8- Because there is a statutory basis to justify severance which was not challenged, we need not consider any other statutory basis. See Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 251, ¶ 27, 995 P.2d 682, 687 (2000). ¶8 Mother also contends that the juvenile court erred by finding that termination was in the children s best interest. Specifically, Mother argues that her children, particularly her daughters, deserve a chance to see that she is no longer the person she used to be. ¶9 be The juvenile court determined, however, that it would detrimental continue the to the children, parent-child particularly relationship. Both the girls, girls to reported having nightmares about Mother; they feared she would find them and do them harm. Both girls 1 indicated that they were The juvenile court found that all three children had been abandoned by Mother even though ADES had not alleged abandonment for her daughters. We need not address the error because we affirm on other grounds. 4 physically abused by Mother. The girls also reported seeing Mother use drugs. ¶10 Moreover, Mother did not protect her daughters. One of the daughters reported that she was raped by one of Mother s drug-using friends. Additionally, she reported that witnessed one of Mother s friends stab another male friend. she In fact, the girls desired to be adopted, and the assigned case worker testified that severance would allow the eleven-year-old and thirteen-year-old girls to feel safe and secure. ¶11 The case worker also testified that Mother would not be able to provide a permanent, safe, and stable home for her son. There was evidence that Mother continued to use drugs after the children were removed and did so until at least August 2009, when she began to participate in services. Moreover, Mother did not visit her son for an extended period of time. ¶12 when Based on the facts, the juvenile court did not err it found that continuing the would be detrimental to the children. parent-child relationship Moreover, based on the fact that the case worker testified that all three children were adoptable, the juvenile court properly found that termination was in the children s best interest. See Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-6520, 157 Ariz. 238, 243, 756 P.2d 335, 340 (App. 1988) (holding that severance was in the child s best interest when the child was adoptable). 5 ¶13 Mother Because Mother suggests that the daughters are not adoptable. is essentially the trial asking court is us in to the reweigh best the position evidence. to judge credibility, we will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. See Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8, 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App. 2004). CONCLUSION ¶14 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge /s/ ___________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, 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.