SUMMER W. v. DCS, E.M., E.-M., -E.-M.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO SUMMER W., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, E.M.M., E.L.M., AND E.W.M., Appellees. No. 2 CA-JV 2020-0157 Filed July 16, 2021 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f); Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 103(G). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. JD201800206 The Honorable Daniel A. Washburn, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Summer W., Apache Junction In Propria Persona Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General By Dawn R. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety SUMMER W. v. DEP’T OF CHILD SAFETY Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Espinosa and Judge Eppich concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Judge: ¶1 Summer W., the mother of E.M., E.L., and E.W., 1 born in November 2016, July 2017, and July 2018, respectively, appeals from the juvenile court’s December 2020 order terminating her parental rights to the children on the grounds of mental illness and length of time in court-ordered care. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), (8)(c). Appointed counsel filed an affidavit pursuant to Rule 106(G)(1), Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct., avowing she had reviewed the record and had found no non-frivolous issue to raise on appeal. We granted her request to permit Summer to proceed in propria persona and file a pro se brief. We regard the two letters she has filed to be her opening brief and her reply to the Department of Child Safety’s (DCS) answering brief. We affirm the court’s order. ¶2 In September 2018, DCS commenced an in-home dependency proceeding, filing a petition in which it alleged Summer had neglected the children, who have special needs, and was unable to care for them. Although DCS did not remove the children initially, about two months after it filed the dependency petition, DCS filed a motion to remove them from Summer’s custody. That motion alleged she was unable to care for them, failed to engage in services, engaged in domestic violence with the children’s father, and displayed cognitive limitations. The court adjudicated the children dependent and ordered that they be returned to Summer’s care. She thereafter absconded with them and the court ordered that they be removed. They have remained in court-ordered care since January 2019. ¶3 DCS provided Summer a plethora of services tailored for her mental health and other issues over the next year and a half. After a 1 Because the children’s first and last initials are the same, we distinguish them by using the initials of their first and middle names. The children had the same father, whose rights were also terminated. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 SUMMER W. v. DEP’T OF CHILD SAFETY Decision of the Court permanency planning hearing in May 2020, however, the juvenile court changed the case plan of reunification to severance and adoption, finding it in the children’s best interests, and directed DCS to file a motion to terminate the parent-child rights. DCS filed the motion shortly thereafter, followed by an amended motion in October. After a hearing in November, the court terminated Summer’s rights in a detailed, ten-page ruling. This appeal followed, and appointed counsel filed an affidavit pursuant to Rule 106(G), Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. ¶4 As DCS correctly asserts, Summer’s pro se opening and reply briefs do not comply with our procedural rules. DCS is also correct that unrepresented litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. See Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76, ¶ 24 (2017). Summer’s briefs contain neither citations to legal authority nor to the record. She insists she is able to care for the children, all of whom have special needs, and that she had done so in the past, asserting she loves them and they need to be with their mother. She asks this court to give her “another chance to be a mother.” But an opening brief must contain a statement of the issues and an argument that includes citation to legal authorities and appropriate references to the record. Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a) (requirements for opening briefs); see also Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 106(A) (Rule 13, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., applies to appeals from final orders of juvenile court). Arguments that are unsupported by legal authority and adequate citation to the record are waived. See Melissa W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 238 Ariz. 115, ¶ 9 (App. 2015) (argument unsupported by authority is waived); Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231, n.6 (App. 2011) (failure to develop argument on appeal results in abandonment and waiver of issue). We may reject an argument based on lack of proper and meaningful argument alone. See Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 345, ¶ 11 (App. 2013). And, we have no obligation to conduct an independent review of the record for fundamental error as in criminal cases under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Denise H. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 257, ¶ 1 (App. 1998). ¶5 Moreover, Summer is asking this court to disregard the juvenile court’s ruling, return her children to her, and give her another chance to demonstrate she can care for them. Although we do not question the sincerity of Summer’s love for her children and we respect her desire to parent them, it is not this court’s role to second guess a juvenile court’s fact findings—findings which must focus primarily on the statutory grounds for termination and best interests of the children. We review an order terminating a parent’s rights for an abuse of discretion. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, ¶ 8 (App. 2004) (appellate court reviews 3 SUMMER W. v. DEP’T OF CHILD SAFETY Decision of the Court juvenile court’s order for abuse of discretion and will not disturb the ruling if the factual findings upon which it is based are supported by reasonable evidence). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court’s ruling. See Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445, ¶ 12 (App. 2007). Summer has not established any basis in law for disturbing the ruling. We therefore affirm the court’s order terminating Summer’s parental rights to her three children. 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.