Daquin H v. ADES/Quantsia 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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/29/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: GH IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONCOMIC ) SECURITY, QUANTASIA M., ) ) Appellees. ) No. 1 CA-JV 11-0135 DAQUIN H., DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz.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 17554 The Honorable Bethany G. Hicks, Judge AFFIRMED Denise L. Carroll Attorney for Appellant Scottsdale Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Phoenix By Michael F. Valenzuela, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellees H A L L, Judge Daquin H. (Father) appeals1 from the juvenile court s ¶1 order terminating his parental rights to Quantasia.2 urges this court to reverse the order. For the Father following reasons, we affirm. FACTS3 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Father is the biological parent of Quantasia, born on February 8, 2000. In December 2008, Child Protective Services (CPS) received a report that Mother had been physically abusing her children as well as abusing drugs and alcohol. Mother disclosed to CPS that she had been smoking marijuana, snorting cocaine and using a glass pipe with crack cocaine. Quantasia and her siblings were removed from Mother s care and placed in custody. ¶3 Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) alleged that Father was unable to parent due to neglect and abandonment. ADES was unable to locate Father for the initial proceedings in the juvenile court. Father failed to appear at the publication hearing and the juvenile court found Quantasia dependent as to 1 Tamika M. s (Mother) parental rights have terminated, but she is not a party to this appeal. other children not involved in this case. also been Mother has 2 Father s rights to his other child, Jeronamo M., have not been severed, and Jeronamo is not a party to this appeal. 3 We review the evidence in the light most favorable factual findings. Jesus M. Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 13, 53 P.3d and draw all reasonable inferences to upholding the juvenile court s v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 203 203, 207 (App. 2002). 2 Father, made her a temporary ward of the court, and committed her to the temporary care, custody and control of ADES. ¶4 In November 2010, ADES moved for termination of the parent-child relationship, arguing that Father abandoned Quantasia and Quantasia had been in an out-of-home placement for fifteen months or longer. The juvenile court granted the motion and changed the permanent case plan to severance and adoption. ¶5 In December 2010, after Quantasia had been in an out- of-home placement for two years, the juvenile court was notified that Father had been residing in the Michigan Reformatory Prison since 2004. in Father was released on March 8, 2011, and remained Michigan. He appeared telephonically for an initial severance hearing, which the court continued, and he contested severing his parental rights to Quantasia. ¶6 The Foster Care Review Board (FCRB) issued findings and recommendations in May 2009, November 2009, November 2010, and May 2011. Father had In its May 2011 report, the FCRB stated that recently been released from an out-of-state incarceration and had not been involved in Quantasia s life. The FCRB found that based on both the length of time Quantasia had been in an out-of-home care and Father s lack of involvement in her life, it was in Quantasia s best interests for her to be adopted. 3 ¶7 The hearing in juvenile July incarcerated court 2011. from 1999 held Father to 2004 the contested testified for that receiving severance he and had been concealing stolen vehicles and incarcerated from 2004 to 2011 for armed robbery and had therefore been incarcerated his entire adult life. Father stated he was unemployed. He conceded that he had been required to register as a sex offender from 1994 until July 1, 2011. years. during Father admitted he had not seen Quantasia in seven Father stated he attempted to write letters to Mother his incarceration, but she did not respond. Father admitted he failed to send financial support, letters, cards, or gifts to Quantasia December 2008. since she was placed in CPS s care in Father received a letter from CPS around March 2011 notifying him of Quantasia s removal from Mother, but ADES did not Father offer stated to that provide it was him with not his reunification intention services. to abandon Quantasia. ¶8 had CPS caseworker Tarina Wood testified that Quantasia special needs and she was receiving special attachment therapy, behavioral health services, and medication to manage her behavior. Wood further testified that it was in Quantasia s best interests to terminate Father s parental rights because she did not have any bond with [Father]. attachment. [She does not] have an [Quantasia and Father do not] have a relationship. 4 He hasn t been involved in [her] familiar with him in any way. life. [Quantasia is] not Wood also stated that Quantasia had been residing in an adoptive placement with her sibling4 for an extended period of time. Wood testified that Father has additional work that he needs to do on himself before he will be in a position needs. Wood to be able parent [a that explained to Father child] was not with special provided with reunification services because ADES did not find Father until December 2010, adoption. and Wood outweigh[ed] the the case stated need plan that for was already Quantasia s Father to do severance best and interests services and Quantasia s best interests would be served by severance and adoption. ¶9 The juvenile court found that ADES proved by clear and convincing evidence that Father abandoned Quantasia by reason of his lengthy incarceration. The juvenile court further found that termination of Father s parental rights was in Quantasia s best interests because it would allow her to achieve permanency and stability in an adoptive home with her sibling. Thus, the juvenile court terminated Father s parental rights to Quantasia. ¶10 erred Father timely appeals and argues the juvenile court by terminated 4 finding due to that Father s abandonment parental and that rights severance Father is not the parent of Quantasia s sibling. 5 should was be in Quantasia s best interests. We have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 8-235 (2007) and 12-120.21 (2003) and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103(A). DISCUSSION ¶11 The relationship evidence juvenile only court upon demonstrates severance and that may terminate finding at a that least clear one preponderance the parent-child and statutory of the severance is in the child s best interest. convincing ground evidence for shows A.R.S. § 8-533(B); Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22, 110 P.3d 1013, 1018 (2005). We will affirm the judgment unless the juvenile court abused its discretion by making factual findings [that] are clearly erroneous[;] that is, unless there is no reasonable evidence to support them. Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 2, 982 P.2d 1290, 1291 (App. 1998) (citations omitted). have made every [T]he juvenile court will be deemed to finding necessary to support the judgment. Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-8287, 171 Ariz. 104, 111, 828 P.2d 1245, 1252 (App. 1991) (citations omitted). ¶12 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1), the juvenile court was authorized to terminate Father s rights upon a finding that Father abandoned the child. A.R.S. abandonment as: 6 § 8-531(1) defines [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. ¶13 Abandonment is measured objectively by examining the parent s conduct, not subjective intent. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249-50, ¶ 18, 995 P.2d 682, 685-86 (2000); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 25 Ariz.App. 10, 12, 540 P.2d 741, 743 (1975). Father failed to maintain a relationship with Quantasia without just cause for a period of time in excess of six justify months. A.R.S. Father s § failure 8-531(1). to Incarceration support or does communicate Quantasia, nor is it a legal defense to abandonment. J., 196 Ariz. at 250, ¶¶ 21-22, 995 P.2d at not with Michael 686. Father admitted he had not seen Quantasia since 2004 and had not sent financial support, letters, cards, or gifts to Quantasia since she was placed in out-of-home care. failing to support, stay in Thus, Father s conduct of contact, or communicate with Quantasia while she was in an out-of-home placement constitutes abandonment. See Id. at 249-50, ¶ 18, 995 P.2d at 685-86 (abandonment is determined by the parent s conduct, including whether the parent has provided reasonable support, maintained 7 regular contact, made more than minimal efforts to support and communicate with the child, and maintained a normal parental relationship). ¶14 Further, although ADES did not locate Father until December 2010, ADES made a concerted effort to locate Father through a parent locate and held a publication dependent hearing and publication severance hearing in an effort to find him. ADES s failure prevent to Father find from relationship with her. Even after Father Father earlier parenting did Quantasia not or interfere or developing a See Id. at 251, ¶ 25, 995 P.2d at 687. became aware of Quantasia s out-of-home placement, Father failed to provide for Quantasia, communicate with her, or attempt to create a parent/child relationship with her. ¶15 Father also maintains that ADES failed to offer him reunification services. However, neither § 8-533 nor federal law requires that a parent be provided reunification services before the court may terminate the parent's rights on the ground of abandonment. See Bobby G. v. Ariz. Dep t Econ. Serv., 219 Ariz 506, 510, ¶ 11, 200 P.3d 1003, 1007 (App. 2008). Given Father s complete lack of involvement in Quantasia s life, his failure to communicate demonstrate with her, or an interest provide in financial her well-being, support, and the extended length of time Father was incarcerated, the juvenile 8 court was justified in terminating Father s parental rights to Quantasia without offering him reunification services. Thus, the juvenile court had a sufficient basis to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that Father abandoned Quantasia. ¶16 that Father next argues the juvenile court erred in finding it was in Quantasia s parent-child relationship. found that terminating best interests to terminate the In support of this ruling, the court Father s parental rights would allow Quantasia to achieve permanency and stability in an adoptive home with her sibling. ¶17 In considering Quantasia s best interests, the juvenile court was required to determine how Quantasia would benefit from the severance or be harmed by the continuation of her relationship with Father. Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5, 804 P.2d 730, 734 (1990). testified family that was Quantasia s meeting her current specialized placement needs, with they her are Wood foster able to provide her with the appropriate support she requires, and that her foster parents expressed a strong interest in adopting her. Additionally, Wood opined that termination and adoption were in Quantasia s best interests. This evidence was sufficient to support the court s best-interests finding. at 377, ¶ 5, 982 P.2d at 1291. Audra T., 194 Ariz. Thus, although Father expressed the desire to parent Quantasia, we cannot say the juvenile court 9 erred by finding that termination of his rights we affirm was in Quantasia s best interests. CONCLUSION ¶18 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment terminating Father s parental rights to Quantasia. __________________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge CONCURRING: ____________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge ____________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, 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.