Kurtis C. v. ADES, Jakob C.
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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/23/2011 STATE OF ARIZONA RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, DIVISION ONE CLERK BY: GH ) KURTIS C., ) No. 1 CA-JV 11-0015 ) Appellant, ) DEPARTMENT D ) v. ) MEMORANDUM DECISION ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) (Not for Publication ) 103(G) Ariz.R.P. Juv. Ct.; SECURITY, JAKOB C., ) Rule 28 ARCAP Appellees. ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD17727 The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge AFFIRMED David W. Bell Attorney for Appellant Mesa Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Michael F. Valenzuela, Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Arizona Department of Economic Security G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 Kurtis C. appeals from the trial court s terminating his parental rights to his son, Jakob. order For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 On October 25, 2007, Joanna J. ( Mother ) gave birth to Jakob. 1 Kurtis ( Father ) is Jakob s Father and Mother have never married. biological father. Since Jakob s birth in 2007, Jakob has never lived with Father and Father has seen Jakob only a handful of times during supervised visits. Throughout Jakob s life, Father has been incarcerated several times and has most recently been serving a resisting arrest, which occurred in April 2009. sentence for Jakob has lived with his aunt and uncle since he was approximately one year old. ¶3 In February 2009, Jakob s best interest attorney filed a dependency petition, alleging Jakob was dependent as to Father and Mother. The petition alleged, among other things, that Father was unwilling or unable to provide the necessary care and control that [Jakob] needs. able to maintain a suitable It alleged that Father was not house for Jakob, does not have stable employment, and has not maintained a relationship with Jakob. The petition also alleged that Father struggles with substance abuse issues. The court, in a subsequent hearing, substituted the Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) as the Jakob, petitioner, and gave granted Jakob s ADES aunt temporary and uncle legal custody temporary of physical custody of Jakob. ¶4 Later that month, ADES 1 referred Father for random Mother also had her parental rights to Jakob severed, but she is not a party to this appeal. 2 urine analysis ( UA ) testing Screening Centers ( TASC ). through Treatment Assessment Father first tested with TASC on March 20, 2009, and tested positive for amphetamines, cocaine, and tetrahydrocannabinol. Over the course of the next month, Father was arrested and incarcerated multiple times, and missed five UA testings with TASC. referred to TERROS Also in March 2009, Father was Families F.I.R.S.T. substance abuse treatment assessment. ( TERROS ) for a Father, however, did not take advantage of TERROS s services and his file was closed out with TERROS in late March 2009. Father admits that he has never been able to complete a substance abuse treatment program because of his repeated incarcerations. ¶5 At a June 2009 dependency hearing, the court found Jakob dependent as to Father, and ordered the case plan to be family reunification. The court also ordered that Father be offered the following services: (1) random UA testing at TASC, (2) a TERROS assessment and any recommendation resulting from the assessment, (3) a parent aide referral, and (4) a psychological consultation and any recommendation resulting from the consultation. The same day, a second-referral was submitted for Father to complete weekly random UA testing through TASC. According to Danyelle Glenn, Father s case manager with Child Protective Services ( CPS ), Father was further advised complete a UA test at TASC after the hearing, but he did not. 3 to ¶6 In the following months, Glenn attempted to provide Father with reunification services. On June 11, 2009, Glenn met with Father and submitted a referral for parent aid services, as well as a substance abuse treatment assessment through TERROS. Father was assessed by TERROS on June 18, 2009. assessment, interested he in told the gaining intake custody of therapist Jakob, During his that and he that was he not was TERROS to get treatment for his substance abuse problems. at He informed the TERROS therapist that he spends all of his money on drugs, and that he uses crack and smokes marijuana a few times a week. for The therapist concluded that TERROS was not appropriate Father and recommended Father seek psychiatric services, counseling, and supportive services from Magellan. ¶7 Father contacted Magellan, and Magellan referred Father to Jewish Family and Children Services ( JFCS ). JFCS advised Father that it was not accepting new clients and that Father should check back at the end of the month. During a phone conversation on June 30, 2009, Glenn advised Father to continue contacting Magellan. ¶8 In July 2009, Father s contact Father several times. parent aide told Glenn that he to Father, however, was in jail and parent aide was unable to initiate services. Father attempted was assessment, presumably with JFCS. 4 scheduled Also in July, for an intake Glenn, however, was not able to determine if Father completed the assessment. In her August 2009 report to the juvenile court, Glenn stated that Father was not taking advantage of the reunification services provided to him, and she recommended the case plan be changed to Adoption by Relative. In November 2009, at provided Father with a paternity test. Father s request, CPS The results of the test revealed that Father is Jakob s biological father. ¶9 In May 2010, ADES moved to have the case plan changed to severance and adoption, and the court approved the change. ADES also filed a motion to terminate Father s parental rights. The motion alleged that Father s parental rights to Jakob should be terminated pursuant to Arizona Revised Statues ( A.R.S. ) § 8-533(B)(8)(c) (Supp. 2010), because Jakob has been in an outof-home placement for fifteen months or longer and Father has been unable to remedy the circumstances that caused Jakob to be in an out-of-home placement. ¶10 The court held a severance hearing in November 2010. During the severance hearing, the court heard testimony from Father and Angela Tapia, a CPS case worker assigned to Jakob in December 2009. Father, who was serving a prison sentence at the time of the hearing, testified via telephone that ADES offered him the following reunification services: (1) a paternity test, (2) UA testing with TASC, (3) a TERROS assessment, (4) substance abuse treatment with Magellan, and (5) parent aide counseling. 5 He admitted that he stopped UA testing because of his repeated incarcerations, and that he has not completed a substance abuse treatment program. Father testified that he would be released from prison in either April or July 2011. ¶11 Tapia testified that Jakob had been in ADES care for fifteen months at the time ADES filed its motion to terminate Father s parental rights. She also testified that it is likely that neither parent will be able to parent Jakob in the near future. According to Tapia, ADES has made diligent efforts to provide reunification services to Father, such as a substance abuse assessment through TERROS, a parent testing through TASC, and a paternity test. aide referral, UA Father, however, failed to comply with the services provided to him, except for completing the paternity test. She also testified that Jakob is adoptable, and that severance and adoption is the appropriate case plan. ¶12 On January 6, 2011, the court issued an order severing Father s parental rights to Jakob. The court found the fifteen month out-of-home placement ground as to Father to have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The court also found that ADES diligently offered to Father a variety of services to help Father remedy the circumstances that cause Jakob to be in care[,] but that Father did not make an adequate effort to participate in those services and has been unable to remedy the 6 circumstances that cause Jakob to be in care. The court also found by a preponderance of the evidence that severance was in Jakob s best interest, a finding that is not challenged on appeal. ¶13 Father timely appeals and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-235 (2007). ANALYSIS ¶14 Father s sole argument on appeal is that the court erred in finding that ADES made diligent efforts to provide him with appropriate reunification services. In a severance case, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court's order. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 547, 549, ¶ 7, 225 P.3d 604, 606 (App. 2010). Because the juvenile court is in the best position to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and make appropriate factual findings, we will not reweigh the evidence but will only look to determine if there is evidence to support the court's ruling. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8, 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App. 2004). We will not disturb the court's ruling absent an abuse of discretion. ¶15 Id. In order for Father s parental rights to be severed under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c), ADES was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it had made a reasonable effort to provide [Father] with rehabilitative services or that 7 such an effort would be futile. Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185, 193, ¶ 42, 971 P.2d 1046, 1054 (App. 1999); diligent see effort also to A.R.S. provide prior to termination). § 8-533(B)(8) appropriate (ADES must reunification make services Generally, ADES must undertake measures with a reasonable prospect of success in reuniting the family. Mary Ellen C., 193 Ariz. at 192, ¶ 34, 971 P.2d at 1053. Although CPS need not provide 'every conceivable service,' it must provide a parent with the time and opportunity to participate in programs designed to improve the parent's ability to care for the child. Id. at ¶ 37 (quoting Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353, 884 P.2d 234, 239 (App. 1994)). ¶16 court s Here, finding substantial that evidence ADES made supports diligent Father with reunification services. the efforts juvenile to provide Beginning in February 2009, ADES offered Father various reunification services including a paternity test, two referrals to TASC for UA testing, two referrals to TERROS, a referral for parent aide services, and substance abuse treatment hearing, Father admitted reunification services, with that and Magellan. he that had his At been the offered repeated severance numerous incarcerations inhibited him from participating in UA testing with TASC and from completing substance abuse treatment. 8 Moreover, the record indicates that the CPS case managers assigned to Jakob frequently contacted Father and encouraged him to participate in reunification services. of occasions efforts to effect. request We also note that the court on a couple made findings finalize the family reunification not contest these Father did additional that services. ADES Based was making plan findings, upon reasonable this nor then in did he record, and Father s own testimony that he received reunification services, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding ADES made diligent efforts to provide Father with reunification services. ¶17 Father argues that the court s finding is erroneous because ADES stopped providing Father with UA testing two months before the court s dependency finding in June 2009. The record reveals, however, that ADES submitted a second referral to TASC in June 2009 for Father to complete weekly UA testing. In addition, Glenn advised Father immediately after the dependency hearing to complete a UA test at TASC before the close of the business day, but Father did not follow Glenn s advice. Accordingly, Father s argument is unpersuasive. ¶18 Father severance also hearing that asserts he that attended he testified substance during abuse the services through Magellan, and that Tapia was not able to effectively contradict Father s testimony. that the court should have To the extent Father is arguing found 9 Father more credible than Tapia, we note that the court is in the best position to weigh the credibility of witnesses and we do not reweigh the evidence on appeal. 47. See Mary Lou C., 207 Ariz. at 47, ¶ 8, 83 P.3d at More importantly, the court never found that Father did not attend substance abuse services through Magellan. Rather, the court found that Father failed to participate substantially in a substance abuse treatment program. This finding is supported by Father s testimony that he has never completed a substance abuse treatment program. ¶19 made Finally, Father argues that the maternal relatives it difficult to have contact with Jakob or to provide support from him because [of] the restraining orders in place. The restraining orders against Father, however, are irrelevant to the issue of whether ADES provided Father with reunification services. CONCLUSION ¶20 The juvenile court s order terminating Father s parental rights to Jakob is affirmed. ____/s/______________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge CONCURRING: ___/s/____________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Presiding Judge ___/s/____________________________ PHILIP HALL, 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.
