MELISSA M., LUIS A. v. ADES, et al

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 MELISSA M., LUIS A., ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, ANGELENA A., BIANCA ) A., LUIS A., ADRIAN A., ANGELICA ) A., ) ) Appellees. ) ) __________________________________) 1 CA-JV 12-0093 1 CA-JV 12-0133 (Consolidated) DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G), Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct.; Rule 28, ARCAP) FILED 12/20/2012 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD11556 The Honorable Colleen McNally, Judge AFFIRMED Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law by Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney for Appellant Melissa M. John L. Popilek, PC by John L. Popilek Attorney for Appellant Luis A. Phoenix Scottsdale Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix by Jamie R. Heller, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Melissa M. ( Mother ) and Luis M. ( Father ) appeal the termination of their parental rights to their five children, Angelica A., Angelena A., Bianca A., Luis A., and Adrian A. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The police responded to a domestic violence call in February 2010. After Mother was arrested on an outstanding warrant and Father appeared to be under the influence of drugs, Child Protective Services ( CPS ) took the four children into temporary custody and placed them with the paternal grandmother. Once the Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) discovered that the parents had a history of substance abuse and domestic violence, and that the children felt unsafe living with them, it petitioned to have the children declared dependent. ¶3 the The children were found dependent in March 2010, and juvenile court reunification. Soon Adrian, was born. adopted the thereafter, case the plan couple s for family fifth child, Following several domestic violence incidents and positive drug tests for methamphetamine by both parents, Adrian was found dependent, and the court granted the request to change the case plan to severance and adoption. ADES moved to terminate the parents parental rights to the children, alleging a history of chronic substance abuse; out-of-home placement of 2 the children for fifteen months or longer; and out-of-home placement of a child under three years old for six months or longer. ADES also alleged Father was unable to parent because of mental illness. ¶4 The parents contested conducted a five-day hearing. the motions and the court The court subsequently made its findings of fact and conclusions of law and terminated their parental rights. 1 appeal of the We have jurisdiction over the consolidated parents pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 8-235(A), 12-2101(A)(1), and -2101(B) (West 2012). DISCUSSION ¶5 Both parents claim that ADES presented insufficient evidence to support termination of their parental rights for a history of substance abuse. We review the 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 court s decision. Id. at 449, ¶ 12, 153 P.3d at 1078. We will not disturb the judgment unless there is no reasonable evidence 1 Initially, the court terminated the parents parental rights to the four youngest children. Once Angelica, who is over the age of twelve, indicated her willingness to be adopted, the court terminated the parents parental rights to her. 3 to support the findings. Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-113432, 178 Ariz. 288, 292, 872 P.2d 1240, 1244 (App. 1993). And, [i]f clear and convincing evidence supports any one the of statutory grounds for severance, we consider claims pertaining to the other grounds. need not Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002). ¶6 unable Parental rights may be terminated if the parent is to discharge [his or her] parental responsibilities because of . . . a history of chronic abuse of dangerous drugs, controlled grounds substances to prolonged 2012). believe that indeterminate Parental including but physical care, control. or not alcohol the and condition period. emotional to will A.R.S. responsibilities limited there refers providing security, § and a are reasonable continue for 8-533(B)(3) to those child parental a (West duties with guidance good and Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92, 97, ¶ 19, 210 P.3d 1263, 1268 (App. 2009). ¶7 A parent s failure to remedy his or her substance abuse despite knowing that the loss of his or her child is imminent constitutes reasonable evidence that the parent has not overcome dependency on drugs or alcohol. Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 379, ¶ 29, 231 P.3d 377, 383 (App. 2010). When evaluating whether the substance abuse will 4 continue for a prolonged period, we must consider the treatment history of the parent to gauge the likelihood the parent will be in a position to parent the child in the foreseeable future. Id. at 378, ¶ 25, 231 P.3d at 382. unable to rise above the Where the parent has been addiction and experience sustained sobriety in a noncustodial setting[] and establish the essential support system to maintain sobriety, there is little hope of success in parenting. Id. ¶8 and Here, clear convincing evidence supported the finding that Mother and Father were unable to discharge their parental responsibilities due to chronic substance abuse. parents started continued to using use drugs in early Both drugs. their teen tested years positive Both and for methamphetamine repeatedly after their children were removed and admitted to using drugs and alcohol regularly after the removal. Despite their initial efforts to participate in reunification services, testing both and parents failed to substance abuse classes environment for the children. the parents testified that fully participate or testified that drug a safe The psychologists who evaluated they were unable substances and commit to a recovery program. psychologists maintain in the parents to abstain from As a result, the could not meet the needs of their children and their substance abuse would likely continue for a prolonged and indeterminate period. 5 ¶9 not Although Mother contends that her substance abuse did prevent testified her that children. from her discharging drug use her was the parental reason duties, ADES took she her Moreover, the juvenile court had to determine the witnesses credibility and the weight of the evidence, Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at 282, ¶ 12, 53 P.3d at 207, and we will not second-guess the findings. ¶10 Furthermore, the preponderance of the evidence supported the finding that terminating Father s rights was in the best interests of the children. 2 The case manager testified that the paternal grandmother was providing a stable home for the children; was meeting their social, educational, emotional and psychological needs; and was willing to adopt the children. She also testified that the children would not be safe in their parents care and their grandmother could provide them with a stable home free from drugs and domestic violence. Because there was evidence to show that the children would benefit from severance, the court did not abuse its discretion determining that termination was in their best interests. Raymond F., 224 Ariz. at 379, ¶¶ 30-31, 231 P.3d at when See 383. Consequently, the court did not err when it terminated Mother and Father s parental rights. 2 Mother does determination. not challenge the 6 court s best interest CONCLUSION ¶11 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the termination of the parents parental rights to their five children. /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.