SABRINA v. ADES, K.G., L.B., A.G., J.G.

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 SABRINA G., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, K.G., L.B., A.G., ) 1 ) J.G., ) ) Appellees. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 7/11/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt No. 1 CA-JV 12-0215 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G) Ariz.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. JD509003 The Honorable David King Udall, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Amanda Holguin, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee ADES 1 Mesa The caption has been amended to safeguard the identity of the minor children pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-0001. Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney for Appellant Phoenix D O W N I E, Judge ¶1 Sabrina G. ( Mother ) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four children (referred to collectively as the Children ). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In March 2010, police officers responded to a domestic violence call. Mother reported that her boyfriend, D.B., had placed her in a chokehold and threatened her. 2 The Children were present, and officers noticed several contusions on A.G., who said that D.B. had hit her on an earlier date. ¶3 In April Security ( ADES ) 2010, filed the a Arizona dependency Children were dependent due to: Department petition, of Economic alleging the (1) Mother exposing them to domestic violence and allowing D.B. to be in the home despite Child Protective Services ( CPS ) and police intervention; (2) Mother s failure to protect the Children from abuse by D.B.; (3) abuse by Mother; and (4) mental illness that placed the Children at risk for abuse and neglect. Mother contested the dependency petition. 2 D.B. is K.G. s father. 2 ¶4 The initial case plan was for family reunification. A.G. advised officers that her home was not a safe place. She described Mother putting a bag in her mouth and trying to choke her and an incident where Mother almost stabbed L.B. with a knife. A.G. also stated that D.B. hit her and threatened to kill L.B. ¶5 L.B. made similar reports. The court initially granted Mother one visit per week and twice weekly telephonic contact, but it asked Dr. Moe to evaluate Mother s contact with the Children. L.B. told Dr. Moe that Mother had whispered to her in the restroom during a visit that D.B. would come to the foster home to kill the Children and related that she and A.G. had nightmares about D.B. doing so. Dr. Moe recommended that phone calls and visits with Mother stop. ¶6 Mother opposed ADES s subsequent motion to terminate her visits and calls, citing a CPS report claiming the Children were compulsive liars. The court, however, granted ADES s motion. ¶7 In ruling on the dependency petition, the juvenile court concluded ADES had not proven Mother had a mental illness that placed the Children at risk. It found, however, substantial and compelling evidence that she had exposed them to domestic violence. The court expressed concern that Mother 3 permitted D.B. back Children at risk. into the home, continuing to place the It stated: THE COURT FINDS startling that Mother voluntarily chose to lift the order of protection ( OOP ) that she had obtained against [D.B.] in order to enable [D.B.] to be at [K.G. s] birth. Rather than maintain the security of the Children provided by the OOP, Mother elected to disregard the protection it offered and instead invited [D.B.] back into their lives. . . . Mother . . . recognized the danger [D.B.] presents to the Children and herself, describing him pointing a gun at her and threatening her life in the presence of the Children, liking to break down doors and running from the police a lot. The court found the Children dependent as to Mother, concluding she and D.B. had physically abused them, and Mother had failed to protect them from D.B. ¶8 from In September 2010, ADES moved to change the case plan reunification to severance and adoption. The juvenile court granted the motion over Mother s objection. ¶9 During a psychological evaluation with Dr. Thal, Mother explained she was involved in a deeply dysfunctional relationship with D.B. from 2005 until 2009, and she allowed him back into the home after he abused her. She denied, however, that the Children had been abused or neglected. Dr. Thal concluded Mother was impulsive and emotionally reactive and appeared incapable of environment for the Children. providing a safe and stable He was uncertain whether Mother 4 would be able foreseeable to discharge future, even interventions. Dr. parental if Thal she responsibilities participated recommended, inter in in the proposed alia, that visitation remain suspended; that a psychosexual evaluation be considered and a psychiatric assessment conducted to determine if Mother would respond to psychotropic medication; and that Mother participate in individual therapy. Noting Mother s resistance to change and her poor prognosis, though, Dr. Thal opined that severance and adoption may be appropriate. ¶10 L.B. and A.G. were further evaluated by Dr. Moe. L.B. disclosed that Mother and D.B. hit the Children and called her derogatory names. L.B. also reported specific incidents of sexual abuse by Mother and D.B. L.B. was sad, angry, and scared living with Mother and said she wanted to remain with her foster parents. Dr. Moe concluded that specifics gave L.B. s statements credibility. details and A.G. likewise described physical and sexual abuse by Mother and D.B. and said that they wanted to kill her. Dr. Moe believed severance and adoption was appropriate if A.G. could not be reunited with her biological father. ¶11 On October 13, 2010, ADES moved to terminate Mother s parental rights pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 8-201(22) and -533(B)(2). ( neglect means a parent s See A.R.S. §§ 8-201(22)(a) inability 5 or unwillingness to provide a child with supervision, food, clothing, shelter or medical care if that inability or unwillingness causes unreasonable risk of harm to the child s health or welfare), -533(B)(2) (termination for neglect or willful abuse includes serious physical or emotional injury or situations in which the parent knew or reasonably should have known that a person was abusing or neglecting a child ). Mother denied the allegations and moved to resume visitation. The court denied her request, whereupon manager. Mother threatened to kill the judge and ADES case Mother subsequently pleaded guilty to two criminal charges based on those threats. ¶12 In April 2011, Mother moved to resume visitation and services, contending ADES had failed to offer the services Dr. Thal recommended. ADES opposed the motion, arguing Mother s treatment of the children during visits was aggressive, abusive and harmful, and would be reasonably calculated to traumatize these children received ample further. ADES reunification further services. asserted The Mother court had denied Mother s motion. ¶13 In October 2011, ADES moved to discontinue services, arguing they § 8-846(B)(1)(d) were not required (reunification services pursuant to unnecessary A.R.S. if court finds a child is the victim of serious physical or emotional injury by the parent or guardian or by any person known by the 6 parent or guardian, if the parent or guardian knew or reasonably should have known that the person was abusing the child ). Mother did not respond, and the court granted ADES s motion. ¶14 After several days of trial, the court issued a ruling terminating Mother s parental rights. It noted Mother s lengthy history of CPS involvement in Arizona and California and the numerous aide, reunification psychological services offered, consultation and counseling, and family preservation. including evaluation, a parent individual The court found CPS had made reasonable efforts to provide appropriate services but that those services had proven unsuccessful due to Mother s actions. After detailing the trial evidence, the court ruled that ADES had proven the petition s allegations by clear and convincing evidence and found by a preponderance of the evidence that termination was in the Children s best interests. ¶15 Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-235. DISCUSSION ¶16 Mother challenges the findings that: (1) ADES made diligent efforts to provide reunification services; and (2) she abused the Children or allowed others to do so. We will accept the no juvenile court s findings of fact unless reasonable evidence supports them, and we will affirm a severance order unless it is clearly erroneous. 7 Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002). I. Reunification Services ¶17 Mother had substantial involvement with ADES before the dependency petition was filed, including services through the Family Builders Program, the Family Connections Program, and Family Preservation Services. petition, ADES consultation, evaluation, According offered visitation, parenting to Additionally, before filing the Mother, a parent individual classes, though, and aide, psychological counseling, domestic because ADES psychological violence did not classes. offer the psychosexual evaluation, psychiatric assessment, and individual therapy recommended by Dr. Thal, the juvenile court s finding of diligent efforts to provide reunification services was clearly erroneous. ¶18 We disagree. 3 ADES offered numerous services designed to keep the family together, failed to substantial attend including after one reunification individual session. services, counseling that Notwithstanding Mother Mother these continued to traumatiz[e] L.B. and A.G. during visits and calls, forcing the court to terminate those contacts. 3 We assume, without deciding, that ADES was required to provide Mother with reunification services. 8 ¶19 The record also supports the juvenile court s finding that delays or omissions in services were largely attributable to Mother s own conduct, including her threats to kill the judge and caseworker and her failure to complete individual counseling or to attend one-on-one parent aide sessions. expressed reservations about the benefits Even Dr. Thal of his proposed interventions, noting Mother s long history of CPS involvement, resistance to change, and poor prognosis. ¶20 ADES service. is not required to provide conceivable Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353, 884 P.2d 234, 239 (App. 1994). offer futile services. Sec., every 207 Ariz. 43, Nor is it required to Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. 50, ¶ 18, 83 P.3d 43, 50 (App. 2004). ADES s mandate is to offer parents the time and opportunity to participate in programs effective parents. 239. designed to help [them] become JS-501904, 180 Ariz. at 353, 884 P.2d at Based on the record before it, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that ADES provided ample time, opportunity, and services for Mother to become an effective parent. II. Abuse and Neglect ¶21 neglected Parental rights may be terminated when a parent has or wilfully abused a child, including serious physical or emotional injury or situations in which the parent knew or reasonably should have known that a person was abusing 9 or neglecting a child. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2). Section 8-201(2) defines abuse as: the infliction or allowing of physical injury . . . or the infliction of or allowing another person to cause serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety . . . diagnosed by a medical doctor or psychologist and is caused by the acts or omissions of an individual having care, custody and control of a child. Abuse includes: (a) ¶22 Inflicting or allowing . . . sexual conduct with a minor . . . [and] molestation of a child . . . . Mother contends the Children s allegations of physical and sexual abuse lack credibility because L.B. has been known to lie about evidence of sexual sexual physical abuse. weigh observe the the abuse, abuse and and there [v]ery was no little corroborating evidence of The juvenile court is in the best position to evidence, judge parties, and the make credibility appropriate of the factual parties, findings. Pima County Dependency Action No. 93511, 154 Ariz. 543, 546, 744 P.2d 455, 458 (App. 1987). We do not reweigh the evidence, but look to the record to determine if there is evidence to sustain the court s ruling. Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-132905, 186 Ariz. 607, 609, 925 P.2d 748, 750 (App. 1996) (citation omitted). conflicting We defer inferences to and the juvenile claims 10 if court s supported resolution by of reasonable evidence. See Pima County Adoption of B-6355, 118 Ariz. 111, 115, 575 P.2d 310, 314 (1978) (citations omitted). ¶23 The record here supports the determination that Mother abused and neglected the Children and failed to protect them from D.B. It includes documented allegations of specific sexual acts perpetrated on L.B. and A.G. by Mother and D.B., and the girls made the same allegations over time to the case manager, Dr. Moe, and their therapist. L.B. and A.G. s sexual A caseworker also testified about role-playing depicting acts involving Mother, D.B., and the Children. L.B. and A.G. were afraid to live Moe in their parentified, own home. which is Dr. a sign testified of that neglect, L.B. was and that her tantrums, hair-pulling, and self-inflicted scratches were signs of her being abused. ¶24 The juvenile court abuse and neglect credible. obviously found the evidence of Substantial evidence in the record supports its findings of abuse and neglect. 11 CONCLUSION ¶25 The order terminating Mother s parental rights affirmed. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Chief Judge 12 is

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.