DANIEL L. 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 DANIEL L., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, D.L., M.L., Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 7/23/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-JV 13-0041 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(G); ARCAP 28) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JD20391 The Honorable Colleen McNally, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Michael Valenzuela, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Vierling Law Offices By Thomas A. Vierling Attorney for Appellant Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 Daniel L. ( Father ) appeals from the juvenile court s order terminating his parental rights to his children, D.L. and M.L. (the children ). 1 On appeal, he argues termination was not in the children s best interest 2 because he had relationships with the children, should be given the opportunity to develop those relationships, and the children were not adoptable because Mother s parental rights had not been terminated. 3 We disagree. The juvenile court found termination was in the children s best interest because of Father s domestic violence, emotional abuse, and substance abuse. James S. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 351, ¶ 18, 356, 972 P.2d 684, 689 (App. 1998) (to find termination was in child s best interest, the juvenile court must find the child will either benefit from termination or be harmed by continuation of the parent-child relationship). The court s findings were amply supported by the record; indeed, by more than a preponderance of the evidence. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 1 We have amended the caption pursuant to this court s Administrative Order 2013-001. 2 The juvenile court found Father had abandoned and neglected the children, and the children were being cared for in an out-of-home placement for both nine and fifteen months. Ariz. Rev. Stat. ( A.R.S. ) § 8-533(B)(1),(2), (8)(a), (8)(c) (Supp. 2012). Father does not challenge these findings, and, instead, challenges only the court s best interest determination. 3 The Arizona Department of Economic Security ( ADES ) had originally moved to terminate both Mother and Father s parental rights, but because Mother was participating in services and making significant behavioral change[s], ADES withdrew its motion to terminate her parental rights to the children, subject to the possibility of filing another termination motion in six months if Mother relapse[d]. 2 210 Ariz. 279, ¶ 41, 110 P.3d 1013, 1022 (2005) (juvenile court must find by preponderance of the evidence termination is in child s best interest); Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, (appellate court ¶ reviews 8, for 83 P.3d abuse 43, of 47 (App. discretion; 2004) appellate court will not disturb juvenile court s findings unless clearly erroneous, meaning no reasonable evidence supports findings). ¶2 At Father the termination perpetrated multiple hearing, ADES presented evidence of domestic violence instances against Mother in front of the children, was emotionally abusive to the children, and used and sold drugs. The children s ongoing CPS caseworker testified Father had not had a normal parenting relationship with the children. A CPS case manager testified the children would benefit from termination because they would have a stable living environment, without exposure to domestic violence, Father s verbal abuse, and dangers in the home. The case manager further explained the children would be harmed if Father s rights were not terminated because of the detrimental relationship he had with the children, including verbal abuse, which caused D.L. to suffer anxiety and develop a nervous tick and eye-blinking that required counseling. ¶3 In addition to the forgoing testimony, Mother testified Father used methamphetamine, was very violent . . . very controlling and there were 3 a lot of drugs involved in [their] relationship. She further explained Father had made a living and selling drugs was in prison because he had transport[ed] considerable quantities of hashish . . . [over a pound of] methamphetamines [and a gun] to sell. She also testified the children witnessed a lot of violence, because Father was very violent towards [her] emotionally and physically, his violence towards her continued to escalate, and he was verbally and emotionally abusive to the children, including calling D.L. stupid. ¶4 Despite relationships opportunity this with to the develop evidence, children these Father and argues should be relationships. he had given The the record reflects, however, Father had not seen the children since CPS took them into custody -- for over a year and a half -- nor provided them with any financial support, had not participated in any services, had done nothing to remedy his anger, domestic violence, and substance abuse problems, and had not maintained a normal parenting relationship with the children. ¶5 his Finally, we reject Father s argument that terminating parental rights was not in the children s best interest because Mother s parental rights remained intact, and thus the children were not adoptable. The termination of Father s parental rights would allow Mother to enter into an adoptive 4 arrangement with a third party. Thus, the children we affirm were adoptable. ¶6 court s For order the foregoing terminating reasons, Father s parental the rights children. /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge 5 juvenile to the
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.
