Leslie C. v. Dcs, J.B. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                        NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    LESLIE C., Appellant,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, J.B., Appellees.
    No. 1 CA-JV 21-0116
    FILED 9-23-2021
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. JD531365
    The Honorable Kristin Culbertson, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Maricopa County Public Advocate, Mesa
    By Suzanne W. Sanchez
    Counsel for Appellant
    Department of Child Safety, Mesa
    By Amanda Adams
    Counsel for Appellees
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.
    LESLIE C. v. DCS, J.B.
    Decision of the Court
    B A I L E Y, Judge:
    ¶1            Leslie C. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
    terminating her parental rights to her son, J.B., born in 2008. Because the
    court’s order is sufficiently supported by findings of facts and reasonable
    evidence, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2             We “view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding
    the juvenile court’s order.” Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 
    223 Ariz. 547
    , 549, ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
    ¶3             During 2017, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”)
    received multiple reports that Mother was neglecting J.B. The reports
    indicated Mother appeared to be abusing substances, frequently failed to
    pick up J.B. from school, lived in an unsafe home, and withdrew J.B. from
    school when she became homeless.
    ¶4            DCS removed J.B. from Mother’s care in late 2017 and filed a
    dependency petition in early 2018. The petition alleged that Mother was
    unable to parent J.B. due to neglect and could not meet J.B.’s need for food,
    appropriate shelter, clothing, and adequate supervision nor maintain the
    disability services J.B. received for his severe autism. An earlier
    dependency in 2013 involved the same concerns.
    ¶5            Mother did not contest the dependency.           The court
    adjudicated J.B. dependent as to Mother and approved a case plan of family
    reunification. DCS provided Mother with services including a parent aide,
    a case aide, drug testing, substance abuse assessments and treatment, case
    management services, counseling, and transportation.
    ¶6            In 2019, the court changed the case plan to severance and
    adoption, and DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights based on
    15 months’ time-in-care. 1 See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). The motion alleged
    that J.B. remained in out-of-home care, in part, because Mother had not
    maintained stable housing and employment, had not provided proof of
    income, and could not meet J.B.’s special needs.
    ¶7          At a contested hearing in March 2021, both Mother and a DCS
    case manager testified. The court found Mother’s explanations for her
    1   Father is not party to this appeal.
    2
    LESLIE C. v. DCS, J.B.
    Decision of the Court
    intermittent compliance with counseling and failure to submit a hair follicle
    drug test were not credible, and that she had not shown stability in her
    employment or housing. The court also found Mother attended only two
    meetings for J.B.’s developmental disability services and had no plan to
    balance his significant needs with her ability to meet his basic needs. The
    court thus terminated Mother’s parental rights.
    ¶8            We have jurisdiction over Mother’s timely appeal pursuant to
    Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-
    120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1), and Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile
    Court 103 and 104.
    DISCUSSION
    ¶9            Mother argues the juvenile court failed to make sufficient
    factual findings to support its conclusion that she is “unable to exercise
    proper and effective parental care and control in the near future,” under
    A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c).
    ¶10            To terminate parental rights, a court must find clear and
    convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground in A.R.S. § 8-533(B)
    and must find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the
    child’s best interests. A.R.S. § 8–537(B); Kent K. v. Bobby M., 
    210 Ariz. 279
    ,
    281, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005); Ruben M., 
    230 Ariz. 236
    , 239-40, ¶ 19 (App. 2012).
    ¶11           Termination based on 15 months’ time-in-care requires proof
    that DCS “made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification
    services,” but “the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances that
    cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement” and “there is a
    substantial likelihood that the parent will not be capable of exercising
    proper and effective parental care and control in the near future.” A.R.S. §
    8–533(B)(8), (8)(c).
    ¶12            A court’s order terminating parental rights must make
    specific findings of fact to support the order. A.R.S. § 8-538(A); Ariz. R.P.
    Juv. Ct. 66(F)(2)(a); see also Logan B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 
    244 Ariz. 532
    , 537,
    ¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2018). The court “is not required to list each and every fact
    relied upon in making its findings,” but must include “the essential and
    determinative facts on which the conclusion was reached.” Logan B., 244
    Ariz. at 537, ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also
    Ruben M., 230 Ariz. at 240-41, ¶¶ 22, 25-26 (stating court must make “at least
    one factual finding sufficient to support each . . . conclusion[] of law” and
    include all the ultimate facts necessary to resolve the disputed issues).
    3
    LESLIE C. v. DCS, J.B.
    Decision of the Court
    ¶13           Here, the court’s 13-page order includes detailed factual
    findings that Mother had not remedied the circumstances that brought J.B.
    into care:
    Although Mother engaged in some services, she did not
    complete her Lifewell counseling, did not successfully
    complete parent aide services, had issues with visitation such
    that the Court reduced her time, remains unemployed, has
    unstable housing, failed to drug test as ordered by the Court,
    and seemingly has no plan in place to balance [J.B.’s]
    significant needs with being able to provide him with basic
    necessities.
    The court also found that the evidence supported that “[t]here is a
    substantial likelihood that Mother will not be capable of exercising proper
    and effective parental care and control in the near future.” These findings
    are sufficiently specific, and we conclude that reasonable evidence supports
    them. See Ruben M., 230 Ariz. at 240, ¶ 24 (stating primary purpose for
    express findings is to allow the appellate court to determine which issues
    were decided and whether the juvenile court correctly applied the law, but
    the appellate court does not reweigh evidence).
    CONCLUSION
    ¶14           Because sufficient findings of fact and reasonable evidence
    support the juvenile court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights, we
    affirm.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-JV 21-0116

Filed Date: 9/23/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/23/2021