DANIELA P. 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 DANIELA P., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, S.M., T.M., D.M., D.M., Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 05/07/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-JV 12-0238 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD19765 The Honorable Roland J. Steinle, III, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Michael F. Valenzuela, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellees Denise L. Carroll, Esq. By Denise L. Carroll Attorney for Appellant N O R R I S, Judge Scottsdale ¶1 Daniela P. appeals the termination of her rights to S.M., T.M., D.M., and D.M. ( children ). 1 parental On appeal, she argues the Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence termination was in the children s best interests because the children had bonded with her. 2 Ariz. Rev. Stat. ( A.R.S. ) § 8-533(B) (Supp. 2012) (juvenile court shall consider best interests of children in termination proceeding). Because substantial evidence supports the juvenile court s termination of Daniela s parental rights, 3 we disagree with her argument and affirm the court s order. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002) (appellate court accepts juvenile court s factual findings if supported by reasonable 1 We have amended the caption to safeguard the identity of the juveniles pursuant to this court s Administrative Order 2013-0001. 2 In passing, Daniela suggests the juvenile court should not have terminated her parental rights because a less extreme alternative -- guardianship -- was available. She did not raise this argument in the termination hearing; therefore it is not properly before us. See Woodworth v. Woodworth, 202 Ariz. 179, 184, ¶ 29, 42 P.3d 610, 615 (App. 2002) (argument not presented to superior court may not be presented for first time on appeal). 3 The juvenile court terminated Daniela s parental rights on the statutory grounds of chronic drug abuse under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), and time in care for both nine and fifteen months under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(a), (c). On appeal, Daniela does not contest the statutory grounds for termination. 2 evidence, and will affirm termination order unless clearly erroneous). ¶2 At the contested termination hearing, a psychologist who had evaluated Daniela testified she abused amphetamine and cannabis; had an antisocial personality disorder; was not interested in working with the State to regain custody of the children; had extremely hostile indulgently children. parent impaired put and her insight and resentful desires judgment towards ahead of because authority; the she and well-being was self- of the He further testified Daniela would not be able to the children reunification because even if she she had no was given intention more of time for changing her lifestyle, and although the children had bonded with her, that did not necessarily mean [she was] going to be willing to step up . . . children. and actually provide for all the needs of the He also testified termination was in the children s best interests so that Daniela s parents ( Grandparents ) -- who had been caring for them and were able to provide for their needs -- could adopt them. ¶3 The Child Protective Services ( CPS ) caseworker testified that although CPS offered Daniela urinalysis testing, hair follicle testing, oral swab testing, and referrals to drug abuse treatment, counseling and provided parent psychological aide services, consultations, 3 and scheduled offered transportation, Daniela never participated in any substance abuse treatment, failed to complete parent aide programs, and refused to engage in counseling and psychological consultations. ¶4 As the record reflects, and as the juvenile court found, Daniela s history of serious chronic drug abuse and antisocial personality disorder prevented her from exercising proper and effective parental care. Although Daniela and the children had bonded, she was unemployed, had unstable housing, could not provide for the children, and consistently refused to participate in substance abuse treatment and other CPS services. The record further reflects Grandparents were willing to adopt the children, could meet their needs, had been caring for them before CPS s involvement, and, during their care, had bonded with them. the time they were in As the juvenile court also found, adoption would give the children long term stability and permanency which [Daniela] ha[d] not provided and cannot provide in the future. 4 ¶5 court s For order the foregoing terminating reasons, Daniela s we affirm parental the rights juvenile to the children. /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge /s/ RANDALL M. HOWE, 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.
