ADES v. Hon. Hicks/Crystally L.

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 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE HONORABLE BETHANY G. HICKS, ) Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF ) THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for ) the County of MARICOPA, ) ) Respondent Judge, ) ) CRYSTALLY L., ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) __________________________________) 1 CA-SA 10-0173 DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/16/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH DEPARTMENT E Maricopa County Superior Court No. JS11534 D E C I S I O N O R D E R This special action came on regularly for conference this 14th day of September, 2010, before Presiding Judge Philip Hall and Judges Sheldon H. Weisberg and Peter B. Swann. No response was filed. Because there is no adequate remedy by appeal, IT IS ORDERED accepting jurisdiction of this special action. Blake v. Schwartz, 202 Ariz. 120, 122, ¶ 7, 42 P.3d 6, 8 (App. 2002); Ariz. R. Spec. Act. 1(a). 1 CA-SA 10-0173 Page | 2 Petitioner challenges the trial court s order substituting it as the petitioner in a private severance action. The severance action was filed by Crystally L., but service of process had not been obtained on either natural parent at the time of the substitution order. Petitioner argues that the trial court s order violated the separation of powers doctrine established by the Arizona Constitution. Ariz. Const., art. III. court has statutory recognized the authorization, inherent to enter We disagree. authority, similar without appropriate necessary to protect the rights of a juvenile. See This specific orders Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec. v. Superior Court (Estay), 178 Ariz. 236, 240, 871 P.2d 1172, 1176 (App. 1994). The trial court s substitution order did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. Petitioner also asserts that Crystally did not allege that the minor children had been abandoned by their parents. However, Crystally did make that allegation in ¶7 of her arguments, the termination petition. Notwithstanding Petitioner s unhelpful trial court s order was premature. Rather than ordering a report from Petitioner after service of process had been completed upon the natural parents, the substitution order shifted the responsibility to proceed with the severance action to Petitioner 1 CA-SA 10-0173 Page | 3 without the benefit of a sufficient factual basis before it. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED accepting jurisdiction and vacating the trial court s July 2, 2010 order substituting Petitioner, Arizona Department of Economic Security, in as petitioner in Crystally s private severance action. _/s/_______________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge

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.