CARLA H. v. ADES, et al
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DIVISION ONE FILED: 3/7/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CARLA H., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, RONIN H., KEIRA H., ) ) Appellees. ) ) ) ) __________________________________) Carla H. ( Mother ) appeals No. 1 CA-JV 12-0232 DEPARTMENT E Maricopa County Superior Court No. JD19848 DECISION ORDER from an order denying her request for make-up visits for the period May 3, 2012 through June 26, 2012. Because Mother s parental rights had been terminated by the time she sought the make-up visitation, we agree with the contention of the Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) that she is not an aggrieved party and that her claims are moot. The April juvenile 2012. On We therefore dismiss her appeal. court June held 26, a contested 2012, severance the court terminating Mother's parental rights. 1 The filed trial its in order next day, Mother requested a status conference to address the question of why 1 Mother appealed, but we affirmed the severance order. Carla H. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 12-0148 (Ariz. App. Jan. 15, 2013) (mem. decision). she has been denied visitation with her daughter since the conclusion of her dependency [sic] trial. The court asked for briefing regarding its authority to grant the relief requested by Mother procedural posture of this case. in the context of the ADES opposed Mother s request because her parental rights had been terminated, an adoptions caseworker had been assigned, and the prior Child Protective Services ( CPS ) case manager had obtained an injunction against workplace harassment against Mother after learning that mother had voiced credible threats parental rights were severed. against the case manager if her The mother also voiced plans to abduct the children if her parental rights were severed. The juvenile court issued an unsigned minute entry denying Mother's request. missed due to The court ruled that Mother s visits were Mother s unreasonableness. not in the child s own lack of cooperation and It further found that make-up visitation was best interest and that Mother s request [wa]s belated in that she should not have waited until after the court ordered terminating her parental rights to complain about visits that she missed before the Court ordered severance. 2 2 Mother s counsel was not endorsed on this minute entry, and counsel thereafter asked the court to issue a nunc pro tunc ruling in the form of an appealable order. The court did so on October 9, 2012, and Mother timely appealed from the order denying her motion to make up post-adjudication visits. 2 In its answering brief, ADES contends we lack jurisdiction because Mother is not an aggrieved party and her claims are moot. Mother did not file a reply brief to address these arguments. Arizona provides Revised that an Statutes aggrieved ( A.R.S. ) party in section any 8-235(A) juvenile court proceeding under this title may appeal from a final order of the juvenile court to the court of appeals. A person is an aggrieved party if the final order operate[s] to deny the party some personal or property burden on the party. right or to impose a substantial Pima County Juv. Action No. B-9385, 138 Ariz. 291, 293, 674 P.2d 845, 847 (1983); see also ARCAP 1 ( An appeal may be taken by any party aggrieved by the judgment. ). The order at issue here did not operate to deny [Mother] some personal or property burden upon her. 845, 848 divest[s] or to impose a substantial In re Gubser, 126 Ariz. 303, 306, 614 P.2d (1980). the right parent An order and the terminating child of parental all legal rights rights, privileges, duties and obligations with respect to each other. A.R.S. ยง 8-539. When Mother requested make-up visitation, her parental rights had already been severed, vitiating her right to any form of visitation. Mother s claim is also moot. When circumstances in a case change to the extent that a reviewing court s action would have 3 no effect on the purposes of appeal. parties, then issue becomes moot for Vinson v. Marton & Assocs., 159 Ariz. 1, 4, 764 P.2d 736, 739 (App. 1988). the appeal. the In such a case, we may dismiss Dougherty v. Ellsberry, 45 Ariz. 175, 175, 41 P.2d 236, 236 (1935) (dismissing appeal because the issue of whether to recall a director was moot once the director s term of office expired). For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge /s/ PHILIP HALL, Judge 4
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.
