Mona G. v. ADES, Torie G.
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 MONA G., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, TORIE G., ) ) Appellees. ) ) _________________________________ ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/09/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-JV 10-0048 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication (Ariz.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. JD 16512 The Honorable Roger E. Brodman, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Jane A. Butler, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Arizona Department of Economic Security The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC by Alison Stavris Attorneys for Appellant Tucson Scottsdale W E I S B E R G, Judge ¶1 Mona G. ("Mother") appeals from the superior court s order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, T.G., after Mother consented to the severance. She now argues that insufficient evidence supported a finding that she was unable to remedy the circumstances that caused the child to be in an outof-home placement. For reasons that follow, we affirm the was taken into court s order. BACKGROUND ¶2 T.G. was born in October 2004 and temporary physical custody for the second time in February 2008 when Mother was hospitalized. Security so intoxicated and incoherent that she was In March 2008, Arizona Department of Economic ("ADES") filed a dependency petition alleging that Mother s substance abuse, physical abuse, and domestic violence interfered with her ability to parent. Although Mother previously had agreed to a ninety-day voluntary placement for T.G., the petition alleged that she had not participated in substance abuse treatments. ¶3 provide The court found T.G. dependent. parent assessment and aide services, treatment through It ordered ADES to counseling, TERROS, substance twice weekly abuse drug testing ("UA"), transportation, and a psychological evaluation. ¶4 At a report and review hearing in July 2009, the court noted that Mother had not been participating in services, that her whereabouts had been unknown, and that she had not visited T.G. since March 2009. The court changed the case plan to severance and adoption. 2 ¶5 ADES filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights alleging that Mother was unable to parent due to chronic alcohol abuse, had not completed treatment and aftercare, and had not consistently provided UAs to demonstrate her sobriety. Additionally, ADES alleged that Mother had been unable to remedy the circumstances that had caused the out-of-home placement and was unlikely to be capable of effective parental control in the near future. Finally, ADES alleged that severance was in T.G. s best interests and that she was in a foster adopt home. ¶6 At the severance hearing in January 2010, Mother testified that she began drinking as a teenager and continued drinking until her first pregnancy, was sober for seven years, and began drinking again in 2006. In September 2006, she had been hospitalized for alcohol treatment. ¶7 2007, After Child Mother s alleged Protective suicide Services attempt ("CPS") in removed November T.G. and referred Mother to TERROS for substance abuse assessment and treatment. Mother received services from Family Preservation beginning January 19, 2008, attended outpatient substance abuse sessions, and had in-home visits with T.G. ¶8 In Mother s custody. discharged February herself. 2008, Soon Six T.G. after, days briefly Mother later was when was returned to hospitalized but she again sought treatment, her blood alcohol concentration ("BAC") was .229. 3 In April, Mother had a psychological evaluation. She later testified that she had lied throughout the evaluation, but that she had been truthful in a January 2010 evaluation. 1 Also in April 2008, CPS asked Mother to continue visits, submit to two random UAs per week, participate in substance abuse treatment, and attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings seven times a week. ¶9 In June 2008, Mother was taken to an inpatient program at New Solution Hope House. She was discharged, however, in August for dishonesty, a bad attitude, and failing to work with a sponsor. Her attendance through December 2008 was sporadic. positive for methamphetamine. at counseling from August In March 2009, she tested In April 2009, Families FIRST and TERROS terminated Mother for non-compliance. In May, she was arrested for marijuana possession, and in July she was admitted to the Community Bridges program, at which time she reported that she had been sober for four out of twelve months in 2008. 1 The evaluation stated that Mother s behavioral and emotional functioning may significantly interfere with her ability to parent successfully. Even though she appears to have been sober for the past 6 months, she lacks adequate insight into what got her into this situation in the first place. Her failure to take responsibility for her actions . . . and her overconfidence relating to her ability to stay sober, places her at risk for relapse. Although medicated for depression and attentional problems, [she] has not participated in any therapy or counseling that would help her deal with psychological distress. Furthermore, her children have been exposed to domestic violence and targeted as victims. The report concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that [her] conditions will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period of time. 4 When Mother moved into a halfway house in July 2009, she had a .156 BAC and tested positive for cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. Also in July, Mother referred herself to TERROS seeking medication for attention deficit disorder and enrolled in a substance abuse program. ¶10 Mother knew that sobriety testified submitting and that to she at the UAs was severance was a supposed hearing means to call of that she demonstrating every day from December 2007 forward to find out whether she was to be tested that day. She did not call between February 2008 and April 18, 2008, and although she then began calling, she did not test when required. and She missed seventeen tests between May and July 2008 twenty-six more between July and December. She missed twenty-seven tests in 2009 until she tested once in July, and she missed twelve tests until she tested once in October and once in November. In March 2009, she tested positive for methamphetamine and in May for alcohol, and she did not test again until July 23. On October 26, 2009 she accepted her attorney s advice and began calling daily to ask about testing. ¶11 Mother s CPS case manager working with Mother in December 2008. testified that she began In August 2008, CPS had offered transportation for Mother three days a week so that she could attend TERROS meetings. By letters in February and October 2009, the case manager reminded Mother that she was to 5 submit UAs and attend TERROS. said that she didn t In February 2009, although Mother need TERROS, her counselor recommended that she start over with the program. there In May 2009, Mother said that she was willing to participate in services, but in June, reported that she was not doing well. In September, she had her first visit with T.G. since April. ¶12 The case manager opined that continue to suffer from substance Mother abuse likely because would she was continually in denial and had declined intensive in-patient therapy. In addition, Mother had been unable to keep a job or stable housing and was not able to safely care for T.G. The case manager testified that T.G. s current placement was meeting her needs and that Mother could not do so. ¶13 On the third day of trial, Mother s attorney stated that Mother had chosen not to contest the petition because it s in the best terminated. mother interests of her child to have her rights After questioning Mother, the court found that knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her right to a trial and that she understood the consequences of her decision. The court accepted her waiver and concluded that ADES had proved by clear and convincing evidence that pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 8-533 (B)(3)(Supp. 2009) Mother was unable to discharge her parental responsibilities due to a history of chronic abuse of dangerous 6 drugs, controlled substances, services . and her The court also found that Mother had not at all been the prolonged that period. fulfilling a and would in for alcohol condition consistent continue and/or . . indeterminate and ha[d] not resolved the substance abuse issues despite ADES s reasonable efforts to provide rehabilitative services. ¶14 Furthermore, the court found that ADES had established pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c) that T.G. had been in an out-of-home placement for more than fifteen months and that Mother had been unable to remedy the circumstances that caused the placement. and a Mother had had several significant relapses substantial likelihood existed that she would not be capable of exercising effective parental control in the near future. Finally, the court found that ADES had proved by a preponderance that severance was in the child s best interests and would free her for adoption. ¶15 Mother timely appealed from the court s order, but she challenges only the finding that she was unable to remedy the circumstances that caused T.G. to be out of Mother s home. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235 (2007) and 122101(B) (2003). DISCUSSION ¶16 Before ordering severance of parental rights, the superior court must find clear and convincing evidence of at 7 least one of the statutory grounds in A.R.S. § 8-533(B). Michael J. v. ADES, 196 Ariz. 246, 248-29, ¶ 12, 995 P.2d 682, 684-85 (2000). has But if the evidence supports findings that ADES established statute any provides, one this of court the statutory need not findings unless as the whether consider evidence would support an alternative ground. 995 P.2d at 687. grounds, the Id. at 251, ¶ 27, On appeal, we defer to the court s factual they are clearly unsupported by reasonable evidence. erroneous, i.e., are Minh T. v. ADES, 202 Ariz. 76, 78-79, ¶ 9, 41 P.3d 614, 616-17 (App. 2001). ¶17 Mother does not challenge the findings that she was unable to discharge her responsibilities due to chronic alcohol abuse and that her condition would continue for a prolonged and indeterminate period. Therefore, the court s conclusion that ADES statutory had proved one ground, when supported reasonable evidence, would authorize the severance order. record reveals reasonable evidence to support findings by The that Mother was unable to parent because of alcohol abuse and that the condition would continue for a prolonged, the superior indeterminate time. ¶18 Mother asserts that court also found pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(a) that she had substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy the circumstances causing the out-of-home placement and that the evidence did not 8 support this finding. statutory subsection requires that a However, the court did not rely on this but instead parent has on § been 8-533(B)(8)(c), unable to which remedy the circumstances that cause[d] the . . . out-of-home placement and there is a substantial likelihood that the parent will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near future. Mother argues that she participated in a variety of services, maintained employment, and admitted herself to many different programs in order to remain sober and accordingly that she did not neglect to remedy the circumstances that caused T.G. s removal. Nevertheless, enrolling in programs is not equivalent to completion and moving into a sober living residence is not evidence of a long-term ability to maintain sobriety. Testimony at trial revealed that although enrolled for group counseling, Mother missed or was late for many of the sessions and that she failed to call or to submit period. to UA The testing superior on numerous court occasions reasonably over could a two-year conclude that Mother had not provided evidence of her sobriety and thus had not remedied the major cause of T.G. s removal from her care and would not be able to parent in the near future. 9 CONCLUSION ¶19 We find no abuse of the superior court s discretion in ordering that Mother s parental rights be terminated. Accordingly, we affirm the order. /s/__________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/_____________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge _/s/________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 10
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.
