Claudia C. v. ADES, A.B.
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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/20/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: GH IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CLAUDIA C., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, A.B., 1 Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-JV 13-0037 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G) Ariz.R.P. Juv.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. JD19058 The Honorable Roland J. Steinle, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas A. Vierling Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Michael Valenzuela, Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Arizona Department of Economic Security Phoenix G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 1 Claudia C. ( Mother ) appeals the juvenile court s We have amended the caption to safeguard the identity of the juvenile pursuant to this court's Administrative Order 2013 0001. order terminating her parental relationship with her daughter, A.B. ( the child ). For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 Mother is the biological parent of the child, who was born in 2004. 2 The child was born with Spina Bifida, and has also been diagnosed with neurogenic bladder and vesicoureteral reflux. These conditions make the child incontinent and prone to bladder and kidney infections. The child s treatment plan includes frequent and regular catheterizations, the daily use of a bowel tube, and daily medications. Without consistent treatment, the child is in danger of renal failure, a lifethreatening condition. ¶3 The Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) took the child into temporary custody on April 13, 2010, after the staff at St. Joseph s Hospital notified Child Protective Services ( CPS ) that the child s doctor was going to cease treatment because of Mother s failure to follow through on the child s treatment plan. At the time the report was made, Mother was living in a domestic violence shelter with the child and her two other children after leaving an allegedly abusive relationship with the child s father. ¶4 On April 19, 2010, ADES filed a dependency petition 2 The biological father s parental rights to the child were terminated in 2012. Father is not a party to this appeal. 2 alleging the child is medically fragile and that Mother had been neglecting the child s medical needs. The court adjudicated the child dependent on June 24, 2010, and approved a case plan of family reunification. The child was placed in a foster home licensed to care for medically fragile children, where she has remained throughout the dependency. plan, ADES domestic provided violence individual Mother with counseling, counseling, Consistent with the case several a supervised services, including psychological evaluation, visits, parent-aide and services. ¶5 Mother consistently performed well during supervised visits and implemented the skills she learned during her parentaide sessions. Mother also attended her counseling sessions regularly and eventually completed a psychological evaluation in May 2011. reported The psychologist who evaluated Mother at that time that Mother appeared to have resolved many issues leading to her child s medical neglect and recommended that the case continue to move toward reunification. qualified her recommendation, however, by The psychologist stating that the child s medical needs should be paramount in determining any timeliness and physical custody changes. ¶6 In August 2011, ADES allowed Mother to have unsupervised physical custody of the child during the weekdays to determine whether Mother could adequately meet the child s 3 medical needs on her own. removed the child from However, in October 2011, ADES again Mother s care based on concerns that Mother had not been adequately caring for the child s medical needs. ¶7 In February 2012, the juvenile court approved an ADES motion to change adoption. ADES the child s then filed case a plan motion to to severance terminate and Mother s parental rights to the child on grounds of neglect under Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-533(B)(2) (Supp. 2012) 3 and fifteen months out-of-home placement under A.R.S. § 8- 533(B)(8)(c). ¶8 In September and October of 2012, the juvenile court held a four-day contested severance hearing. At the hearing, the child s school nurse testified that while the child was in Mother s care in August 2011, the child would report that Mother was not regularly medications. when catheterizing her or administering her The nurse also reported that Mother was defensive contacted about these issues and that Mother failed to respond when the nurse would notify Mother that she was running low on the testified wearing child s that dirty the medical child clothes, supplies. would and with 3 often urine The come to and/or nurse school feces further dirty, in her Absent material revision since the date of the severance, we cite the current versions of statutes. 4 diaper. Mother testified that she had catheterized the child regularly and that the child had lied to the nurse about not receiving her medication. ¶9 The child s pediatric urologist testified that if the child is not catheterized and medicated consistently she would be under an unreasonable risk of harm, and that her required degree of care is going to be more intense going forward because of surgeries that are being proposed as a part of the child s care plan. A second clinical psychologist evaluated Mother in June 2012 and testified that, although Mother has the knowledge and ability to attend to the child s medical needs, she had shown psychologist a history further of not testified following that she is through. The concerned about Mother s ability to care for the child in light of the multiple stressors in Mother s life, such as her dysfunctional relationship with her current boyfriend and the fact that she was pregnant with a fourth child. ¶10 Further, the child s most recent CPS case worker testified that there was ongoing domestic violence in the home between Mother and her live-in boyfriend, including an incident in February 2012 which resulted in Mother being hospitalized. 4 4 Mother testified that she had broken off her relationship with the boyfriend after this incident, but then admitted that she became pregnant with his child three months after the relationship had supposedly ended. 5 The case worker acknowledged that Mother did very well with the child at Mother supervised did not unsupervised. The visits, but consistently case worker reiterated her for also that the care concern child when stated that after ADES removed the child from Mother in October 2011, Mother became less compliant with services. ¶11 In December 2012, the court issued a minute entry severing Mother s rights to the child, and on February 8, 2013, the court entered its signed findings of fact and conclusions of law, incorporating its prior minute entry. The court found by clear and convincing evidence the State had proven the statutory grounds for severance and by a preponderance of the evidence that severance was in the best interests of the child. ¶12 A.R.S. Mother timely appeals, and we have jurisdiction under §§ 8-235(A) (2007), 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), and 12- 2101(A)(1) (Supp. 2012). ANALYSIS ¶13 Although the right to have custody of one s child is fundamental, it is not absolute. See Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 248, ¶¶ 11-12, 995 P.2d 682, 684 (2000). A juvenile court may terminate a parent's rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence at least one statutory ground for severance, and by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. 6 A.R.S. §§ 8 533(B), 537(B); Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288, ¶ 41, 110 P.3d 1013, 1022 (2005). best position evidence, to and make make The juvenile court is in the credibility appropriate determinations, findings. Jesus weigh M. v. the Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002). parental Accordingly, we will affirm an order terminating rights unless no reasonable evidence supports the court s findings and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court s order. Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92, 95, ¶ 10, 210 P.3d 1263, 1266 (App. 2009). ¶14 Mother s only argument on appeal is that the termination of her parental rights was not in the best interests of the child. consider the termination primarily Under A.R.S. § 8 533(B), a juvenile court must best interests petition. upon the of A best interests those of the parent . . . . the of child when interests the child, ruling inquiry as on a focuses distinct from Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 287, ¶ 37, 110 P.3d at 1021. ¶15 interests, To establish that termination is in the child's best the court must find either that the child will benefit from termination of the relationship or that the child would be harmed by continuation of the relationship. James S. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 351, 356, ¶ 18, 972 P.2d 7 684, 689 (App. 1998). The best interest requirement may be met if, for example, the petitioner proves that a current adoptive plan exists for the child, or even that the child is adoptable. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 50, ¶ 19, 83 P.3d 43, 50 (App. 2004) (internal citations omitted). ¶16 Here, the court found that termination of Mother s parental rights would benefit the child because it would allow her to be adopted and because termination would provide the child with stability[] [and] permanency, and free her from a neglectful home. We find sufficient evidence in the record to support this finding. ¶17 During the hearing, the child s former CPS case worker testified that the foster placement where the child has been throughout the dependency was open to the possibility of adopting the child and has adopted other special needs children in the past. The case worker also testified that the child is adoptable because she is young, very loving, and does not have serious behavioral issues. Further, one of the psychologists who evaluated Mother testified that to a reasonable degree of psychological probability, Mother would continue to neglect the child s medical needs if the child were returned to her. child s physician testified that he agreed there would The be a substantial risk to the child if she were returned to Mother s care unsupervised. 8 ¶18 Therefore, we find there is substantial evidence in the record to support the court s finding that termination of Mother s parental rights was in the child s best interests. CONCLUSION ¶19 For these reasons, we affirm the juvenile court s ruling terminating Mother s parental rights to the child. /s/ _____________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge 9
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.
