MICHELLE C. v. ADES, AMANDA 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 STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MICHELLE C., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, AMANDA C., ) ) Appellees. ) ) ) __________________________________) 1 CA-JV 12-0027 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/23/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G), Ariz.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. JD506679 The Honorable Raymond P. Lee, Retired Judge AFFIRMED The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC by Alison Stavris Attorney for Appellant Scottsdale Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix by Amanda Holguin, Assistant Attorney General Mesa Attorneys for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Michelle terminating her C. ( Mother ) parental rights following reasons, we affirm. appeals to her from daughter. the order For the FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The child was born in January 2007 and was diagnosed with severe scoliosis, congenital chronic quadripleia affects assistance. feeding lung cerebral her brain ability disease palsy, to defects, a eat, and blindness, asthma, neurological walk, talk, seizures, and spastic- condition and sit that without Shortly after her birth, a brain shunt and gastric tube were implanted. Following the surgeries, the child s treating physician contacted Child Protective Services ( CPS ), and Mother agreed to an in-home dependency. She received in-home services, including case management, physical and occupational completed the therapies, services, and the respite in-home care. Because dependency case she was dismissed in October 2007. ¶3 had Two years later, CPS received a report that the child been admitted to Cardon Children s Hospital shock, respiratory failure, and dehydration. for septic Mother admitted to diluting the child s prescribed Pedialyte with water for several days. CPS also learned that Mother had failed to take the child to several medical and therapy appointments, and that the child had not seen her pediatrician in eight months. Upon visiting Mother s house, CPS discovered it did not have heat or working water and was unsanitary. 2 ¶4 Following 2010, the child her was release placed from in the foster hospital care Department of Economic Security ( ADES ). January the by in Arizona The child was found dependent as to Mother in April 2010, and the juvenile court adopted ADES s case plan of family reunification. variety of services that were offered to Despite the reunify Mother and child, Mother canceled many of her supervised visits, did not complete parental skills training, child s medical appointments. counseling, seek conditioning in family members home. who missed many of the Additionally, she did not attend employment, her and or secure Mother engaged also in heating admitted domestic or air- that other violence and methamphetamine abuse were living in the home. ¶5 At the permanency planning hearing in May 2011, the juvenile court granted ADES s request to change the case plan to severance and adoption. ADES then filed a termination motion alleging that Mother was unable to remedy the circumstances that had caused the child to remain in an out-of-home placement for fifteen months or longer under Arizona ( A.R.S. ) section 8-533(B)(8)(c) (West 2012). Revised Statutes After a three- day contested hearing, the juvenile court entered its findings of facts rights. and conclusions of law and terminated her parental Mother appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A) and 12-2101(A)(1), (B). 3 DISCUSSION ¶6 Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred when it held that ADES made diligent efforts to reunite her with her child pursuant to § 8-533(B)(8)(c). that ADES failed providing her to with satisfy its Specifically, she argues statutory psychiatric and obligation counseling by not services, or parenting skills and training tailored to her child s special needs. ¶7 We review a judgment terminating parental rights for an abuse of discretion. Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445, 452, ¶ 19, 153 P.3d 1074, 1081 (App. 2007). When reviewing the judgment [w]e view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile Id. at 449, ¶ 12, 153 P.3d at 1078. court s decision. And, we will not disturb the termination order unless there is no reasonable evidence to support the findings. Pima Cnty. Juvenile Severance Action No. S-113432, 178 Ariz. 288, 292, 872 P.2d 1240, 1244 (App. 1993). ¶8 Parental rights may be terminated if ADES has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services and the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative period of fifteen months or longer pursuant to court order. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). Additionally, there must be a substantial likelihood that the parent will not be capable of 4 exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near future. ¶9 with Id. ADES fulfills the mandate when it provides the parent the designed time to and help opportunity her become an to participate effective in parent. programs Maricopa Cnty. Juvenile Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353, 884 P.2d 234, 239 (App. 1994). It need not, however, provide every conceivable service, or reunification efforts that are futile. Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185, 192, ¶¶ 34, 37, 971 P.2d 1046, 1053 (App. 1999). Rather, ADES has satisfied its duty when it provides the type of therapy [that] offer[s] the most hope for enabling the mother to carry out her parental responsibilities. Maricopa Cnty. Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963, 143 Ariz. 178, 189, 692 P.2d 1027, 1038 (App. 1984). ¶10 Here, consultation, supervised ADES provided psychological visits, Mother and transportation, a psychological psychiatric evaluations, and with one-on-one parent aide sessions to assist her in parenting, job seeking, and budgeting skills. She appointment classes. was also reminders, provided and with parenting mental and health anger services, management Despite the many offered services for more than two years, Mother missed medical appointments and refused to fully participate in counseling, supervised 5 visits with her child, medical treatment exercises. for the youngster, or other parenting aid She also refused to seek employment or make her home safe and sanitary. There is nothing in the record to suggest Mother refused to visit her child or participate in her child s services because they were not designed to address the myriad medical needs of the child. Moreover, her failure to participate in the services was not due to inadequate efforts by ADES. See Maricopa Cnty. Juvenile Action No. 4238, 133 Ariz. 598, 601, 653 P.2d 55, 58 (App. 1982) (noting that the State s responsibility to make all reasonable efforts to preserve the parent-child relationship is not without limits and that the parent is required to make a good-faith effort to reunite the family ). And, contrary to her claim, she did not demonstrate that there were other services that ADES could have provided to improve her ability to care for the child. See Pima Cnty. Severance Action No. S-2397, 161 Ariz. 574, 577, 780 P.2d 407, 410 (App. 1989) (upholding severance where evidence established that no other services that might preserve the family could be offered that had not already been offered). Consequently, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by finding that ADES provided reasonable services to attempt to unify the family. 6 CONCLUSION ¶11 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the termination of parental rights of Mother to her daughter. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge /s/ ________________________________ RANDALL M. HOWE, Judge 7

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.