WILLIAM M. v. ADES, BRODIE 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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE WILLIAM M., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, BRODIE M., ) ) Appellees. ) ) __________________________________) 1 CA-JV 12-0059 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/23/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G), Ariz.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. JD19526 The Honorable Bethany G. Hicks, Judge AFFIRMED Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law by Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix by Michael F. Valenzuela, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 William M. his parental rights. ( Father ) challenges the termination of Specifically, he argues that the juvenile court erred by finding that termination was in the child s best interest. Because the record supports the finding that the termination was in the child s best interest, we affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Father is the parent of a child born in 2008. The child was found to be dependent in October 2010, and the case plan was family reunification. After a series of report and review was hearings, the case plan adoption on January 6, 2012. changed to severance and The Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) filed a motion for severance and, after the subsequent trial, Father s parental rights were terminated. DISCUSSION ¶3 It is axiomatic that before a parent s rights to his or her child can be terminated, the juvenile court must find that one of the statutory grounds for severance is proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination is in the child s best interest by a preponderance of the evidence. See Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 110 P.3d 1013 (2005). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court s findings, Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 205, 207, ¶ 2, 181 P.3d 1126, 1128 (App. 2008), and will affirm unless there is no reasonable evidence to support the court s factual findings. Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 2, 982 P.2d 1290, 1291 (App. 1998). We will not second-guess the court s findings because the judge 2 was in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002). ¶4 The sole issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court erred when it determined by a preponderance of the evidence that termination was in the child s best interest. Accordingly, we review the record to determine whether there is evidence that the child would benefit by the termination or would be harmed by a continuation of the parent-child relationship, Maricopa Cnty. Juvenile Action No. JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5, 804 P.2d 730, 734 (1990), which would include whether the child is adoptable or whether the placement is meeting the child s needs. Audra T., 194 Ariz. at 377, ¶ 5, 982 P.2d at 1291. ¶5 to Here, the juvenile court found that Father was unable discharge his parental responsibilities because of a twenty-five-year history of chronic drug abuse, and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the condition would continue for a prolonged indeterminate period. The court then found that the child would be at risk if placed in Father s care because substance abuse contributes to unstable parenting. noted that the four-year-old had been in an The court out-of-home placement for more than fifteen months, was in a stable, secure environment, was adoptable and 3 would achieve stability and consistency if adopted. As a result, the court found that the termination was in the child s best interest. ¶6 Although there was no evidence that the child s foster placement was willing to adopt him, there was evidence that they were willing to provide for him and would continue to meet his medical, physical, psychosocial, adoptive home was found. and emotion needs until an Consequently, there was sufficient evidence to support the court s best interest findings. ¶7 Father, however, argues that there was not sufficient evidence of best interest because he had not abused drugs for some four months prior to trial, did not pose a risk to the child, and was still capable of working and earning a very good salary and meeting his parental responsibilities. Despite his testimony, the best interests inquiry focuses primarily upon the interests parent. of the Kent K., 210 Ariz at 287, ¶ 37, 110 P.3d at 1021. The experienced of the juvenile child, court as distinct judge from properly those focused on the evidence when determining that termination was in the child s best interest, which included Father s history of drug abuse, his refusal to participate in reunification services, and the court s determination that his testimony Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion. 4 lacked credibility. CONCLUSION ¶8 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment terminating Father s parental rights. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 5

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.