Leah R. v. Dcs ( 2016 )


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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
    LEAH R.,
    Appellant,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, U.M., D.M., D.M., I.F.,
    Appellees.
    No. 1 CA-JV 16-0040
    FILED 8-4-2016
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. JD 28648
    The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    The Stavris Law Firm PLLC, Scottsdale
    By Christopher Stavris
    Counsel for Appellant
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
    By Daniel R. Huff
    Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety
    LEAH R. v. DCS et al.
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
    O R O Z C O, Judge:
    ¶1           Leah R. (Mother) appeals the court’s termination of her
    parental rights to her four children; U.M., D.L.M., D.R.M., and I.F. (the
    Children).1 For the following reasons, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2            In July 2014, Department of Child Safety (DCS) initiated
    dependency proceedings as to Mother, alleging that the Children were
    dependent due to abuse and neglect. A year later, DCS filed a motion for
    severance, alleging abandonment, inability to discharge parental duties due
    to substance abuse, and the Children’s length of time in care.
    ¶3            After a contested severance hearing the court took the matter
    under advisement, and subsequently severed Mother’s rights on the
    grounds she could not care for the Children as a result of substance abuse
    and length of time in care. The court also found DCS proved by a
    preponderance of the evidence that severance was in the Children’s best
    interests. Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
    Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised
    Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 8-235.A, 12-120.21.A.1 and -2101.A (West 2016).2
    DISCUSSION
    ¶4            Mother argues the court erred in terminating her parental
    rights but does not challenge the court’s determination that severance was
    in the Children’s best interests. We therefore do not address best interests.
    1     DCS also terminated the parental rights of the Children’s respective
    Fathers. None of the Fathers are party to this appeal.
    2     We cite to the current version of applicable statutes absent any
    change material to this decision.
    2
    LEAH R. v. DCS et al.
    Decision of the Court
    ¶5              A parent-child relationship can be terminated when the court
    finds at least one of the statutory grounds for severance and determines that
    severance is in the child’s best interests. A.R.S. § 8-533.B; Mary Lou C. v.
    Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 
    207 Ariz. 43
    , 47, ¶ 8 (App. 2004). We review a court’s
    severance determination for an abuse of discretion, adopting its findings of
    fact unless clearly 
    erroneous. 207 Ariz. at 47
    , ¶ 8. A court’s severance
    determination will be upheld unless there is no evidence to sustain the
    court’s ruling. 
    Id. Under A.R.S.
    § 8-533.B.3, a parent’s rights can be
    terminated when the parent is “unable to discharge parental
    responsibilities” as a result of substance abuse and “there are reasonable
    grounds to believe that the condition will continue for a prolonged
    indeterminate period.” See also Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 
    224 Ariz. 373
    , 377, ¶ 15 (App. 2010).
    ¶6             Mother argues there was insufficient evidence that she could
    not discharge her parental duties and no grounds that her substance abuse
    issues would continue because “she has demonstrated that she is amenable
    to rehabilitative services.”
    ¶7            In making the determination to terminate Mother’s rights, the
    court found that Mother had “a pronounced history of alcohol abuse and a
    notable history of substance abuse.” The court further found that, as a
    result of Mother’s substance abuse, “Mother has not been able to meet the
    needs of the [C]hildren and there is no basis to conclude that she will be
    able to do so consistently in the future.” The court also found “the totality
    of the evidence creates a reasonable belief that the chronic substance and
    alcohol abuse will continue.”
    I.     Inability to Discharge Parental Responsibilities
    ¶8            When determining whether a parent can discharge parental
    responsibilities, the court must consider how the substance abuse hinders
    the parent’s ability to be an effective parent. Raymond 
    F., 224 Ariz. at 377-78
    ,
    ¶ 19. In making this finding, the court has flexibility to consider the
    circumstances of each case. 
    Id. at 378,
    ¶ 20.
    ¶9            The record supports the court’s finding that Mother was
    unable to discharge her parental responsibilities as a result of substance
    abuse. At the contested severance hearing the DCS case manager testified
    that in 2008, Mother was referred to DCS because one of the Children was
    born exposed to substances. Then in 2013 Mother was again referred to
    DCS because of allegations Mother was abusing illegal substances and
    neglecting to properly care for the Children. Finally, in 2014 DCS took the
    3
    LEAH R. v. DCS et al.
    Decision of the Court
    Children into custody after it received reports that the Children “were
    being left out for long hours every day without access to food or water” and
    that they were exposed to illegal substances.
    ¶10            Despite DCS involvement and a requirement that she submit
    to drug testing and treatment, Mother continued to test positive for
    substances. She also failed to bring appropriate supplies to care for the
    Children during visits. Mother’s visits with the Children were terminated
    after she failed to engage in parenting services offered to her. Also, the
    court found that substance abuse “impairs judgment and would place the
    [C]hildren at risk of not having even their basic needs met.” On this record,
    we cannot say the court erred in finding Mother could not discharge her
    parental responsibilities due to substance abuse.
    II.   Reasonable Belief Chronic Substance Abuse Will Continue
    ¶11            Evidence sufficient to support a finding that a substance
    abuse issue will continue may include the parent’s history of drug use and
    failure to complete or engage in offered services. Raymond 
    F., 224 Ariz. at 378-79
    , ¶¶ 26-29. A parent’s failure to abstain from substances despite a
    pending severance is “evidence [the parent] has not overcome [the]
    dependence on drugs and alcohol.” 
    Id. at 379,
    ¶ 29. The court here found
    that Mother’s history of abuse dated back to her adolescence. Mother was
    reported to DCS on at least two prior occasions, and both allegations
    included reports Mother used illegal substances, impairing her ability to
    care for the Children. The DCS case manager reported that Mother’s failure
    to comply with substance abuse testing resulted in termination of her
    referral for treatment for non-compliance. When Mother did submit to
    testing, she tested positive for illicit substances and alcohol; she tested
    positive for marijuana as recently as August 2015 and alcohol in October
    2015. The case manager reported that Mother’s positive test from October
    was particularly concerning because she had a history of chronic alcohol
    abuse, and Mother reported that she was pregnant at that time.
    ¶12           Although Mother contends she is “amenable” to services, she
    admitted she did not consistently submit to substance testing and failed to
    promptly reinitiate services terminated as a result of her non-attendance.
    The court found that, at best, Mother had two months of sobriety at the time
    of the severance trial. The court did not err in finding Mother’s substance
    abuse issues were likely to continue.
    ¶13         When clear and convincing evidence supports at least one of
    the grounds for severance, we need not address the other reasons for
    4
    LEAH R. v. DCS et al.
    Decision of the Court
    severance. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 
    203 Ariz. 278
    , 280, ¶ 3 (App.
    2002). In affirming the court’s severance pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533.B.3, we
    need not discuss Mother’s arguments related to the other ground for
    severance. See 
    id. CONCLUSION ¶14
             For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s severance of
    Mother’s rights to the Children.
    :AA
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-JV 16-0040

Filed Date: 8/4/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021