VIRGINIA B. v. ADES

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 VIRGINIA B., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, ) ) Appellee. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 2/28/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-JV 12-0171 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G), Ariz.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. JD505680 The Honorable Kirby D. Kongable, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law by Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix by Eric Devany, Assistant Attorney General Mesa Attorneys for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 Virginia B. ( Grandmother ) appeals the revocation of her permanent guardianship of her grandchild, M.D. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 For reasons not in the record, Grandmother became the child s permanent guardian in 2006. She called the Arizona Department of Economic Security s ( ADES ) hotline in April 2011 requesting assistance five-year-old s because behavior. she ADES was unable offered to family control the preservation services, but Grandmother repeatedly told the intake worker she wanted the case closed. ¶3 Grandmother called ADES one month later requesting that ADES take the child into custody because she [did] not want to hurt [the child] but may [do so] if someone [did] not intervene. ADES removed the child, placed her in foster care and found her dependent as to her Grandmother. 1 ADES then moved to terminate the guardianship. ¶4 in After the child was removed, Grandmother participated ADES services, including a psychological and psychiatric evaluation, parenting aide classes, and supervised visits. The psychologist, however, reported that Grandmother suffered from 1 The child was found dependent as to her parents on July 25, 2011. 2 various cognitive disorders and the prognosis on her ability to effectively parent her granddaughter was poor. The parenting aide reported Grandmother struggled to understand the parenting information and importantly, made ADES no progress learned that within the program. child had been the Most abused by Grandmother s nephew, a registered pedophile, and she failed to report the abuse. ¶5 Following the contested hearing, the juvenile court made its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and terminated Grandmother s guardianship. We have jurisdiction over her appeal pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 8-235, 12-120.21(A)(1), and -2101(B) (West 2013). DISCUSSION ¶6 Grandmother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that guardianship revocation was in the child s best interest. 2 discretion and will We review the facts for an abuse of affirm the revocation of a permanent guardianship so long as there is reasonable evidence to support it. See Jennifer B. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 189 Ariz. 553, 555, permanent 944 P.2d 68, guardianship 70 (App. requires 1997). clear and Revocation convincing of a evidence that demonstrates a change of circumstances has occurred and 2 Grandmother does not dispute the court s finding that a change in circumstances occurred. Consequently, we do not address this issue on appeal. 3 that revocation is in § 8-873 (West 2013). that demonstrates removal or a relationship. ¶7 best interests. A.R.S. an affirmative to the benefit child by to the child continuing by in the Jennifer B., 189 Ariz. at 577, 944 P.2d at 72. there finding interest. child s Best interests can be proven by evidence detriment Here, court s the is that sufficient revocation evidence was in supporting the child s best the Grandmother failed to protect her granddaughter from sexual abuse by a family member, failed to report the abuse and failed to seek counseling for the youngster. Moreover, the psychiatrist reported that Grandmother would probably be unable to provide child. the necessary emotional and medical care for the Consequently, the evidence supports the best interest finding because revocation would allow the child to be away from a family pedophile and get the necessary help to overcome the resulting trauma. 3 ¶8 Grandmother contends that the child would derive no affirmative benefit from revocation since she is still uncontrollable and has no more stability in her foster home than with Grandmother. We disagree. 3 Although the child s The case manager also reported that revocation would give the child the opportunity to be placed with an adoptive family that could provide her with a loving, stable home environment. 4 foster parents were unwilling to adopt her, 4 she is safe from harm and receiving suffered. treatment to cope with the abuse she Additionally, the case manager testified that the youngster is much calmer, excelling in school with the help of her foster parents, adopting her. and that two families are interested in Consequently, the court did not err by revoking Grandmother s permanent guardianship. CONCLUSION ¶9 Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm. /s/ _____________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge 4 The foster parents had recently adopted a child and were then unwilling to agree to adopt another. Regardless, being free from unreported abuse by a pedophile and receiving services to cope with the resulting trauma is in the child s best interest. 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.