Vanessa R. v. Dcs ( 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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
    VANESSA R., Appellant,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, M.S., R.R., Appellees.
    No. 1 CA-JV 21-0014
    FILED 6-29-2021
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. JD36332
    The Honorable Sam J. Myers, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    David W. Bell Attorney at Law, Mesa
    By David W. Bell
    Counsel for Appellant
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
    By Autumn Spritzer
    Counsel for Appellee
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.
    VANESSA R. v. DCS, et al.
    Decision of the Court
    G A S S, Judge:
    ¶1           Mother, Vanessa R., appeals the superior court’s order
    terminating her parental rights to her two children. Because reasonable
    evidence supports the superior court’s diligent-efforts finding, we affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2            Mother is the biological parent of M.S., born in 2012, and R.R.,
    born in 2016. Mother has a significant history of drug abuse, mental illness,
    and domestic violence. When the initial dependency proceedings began,
    she had been using methamphetamine intermittently for nineteen years
    and had been hospitalized over twenty times for mental-health issues. In
    August and September 2018, the Department of Child Safety (DCS)
    received several reports alleging mother was abusing drugs, harming
    herself because of her mental illness, and fighting with her boyfriend. When
    DCS investigated, mother confirmed the allegations. Accordingly, DCS
    took custody of the children and filed a dependency petition.
    ¶3           DCS referred mother for services, including substance-abuse
    testing and treatment, psychological and psychosexual evaluations,
    mental-health services, individual counseling with a domestic violence
    component, and a parent aide with visitation. Except for the parent-aide
    service, mother participated inconsistently and was closed out
    unsuccessfully from her services. Mother engaged in the parent-aide
    service and closed out successfully, but the parent aide recommended a
    second referral to address additional parenting goals.
    ¶4            Before DCS could refer mother for a second parent aide, five-
    year-old M.S. began exhibiting sexualized and self-harming behaviors
    which coincided with mother’s visits. In April 2019, DCS moved to suspend
    visits between mother and M.S. The superior court granted the suspension,
    and ruled mother “must demonstrate some progress regarding mental
    health treatment and/or domestic violence counseling and/or substance
    abuse treatment before” it would review the suspension order. Mother
    continued to visit with R.R. through the parent aide.
    ¶5            In September 2019, mother completed a psychosexual
    evaluation with Dr. Alex Levitan. Because of mother’s emotional state
    during the evaluation, Levitan could not draw any conclusions about
    whether she engaged in sexual behavior towards M.S. Levitan reported
    mother “was visibly distraught throughout the evaluation. It approached
    crisis. She was unable to answer questions. She had difficulty completing
    2
    VANESSA R. v. DCS, et al.
    Decision of the Court
    tests. It seemed that she had significant difficulty regulating her emotions.”
    He diagnosed mother with post-traumatic stress, depressive, and stimulant
    and alcohol-use disorders. Citing mother’s “ongoing mental health
    concerns, maladaptive coping strategies, and history of domestic violence,”
    Levitan gave a guarded prognosis about her ability to parent the children.
    He recommended mother engage in substance-abuse services, individual
    and domestic-violence counseling, and parenting services.
    ¶6            In December 2019, DCS moved to terminate mother’s parental
    rights based on out-of-home placement for fifteen months. See A.R.S. § 8-
    533.B.8(c). The same month, DCS, mother, mother’s therapist, and M.S.’s
    therapist discussed allowing mother to have indirect contact with M.S. in
    the hope in-person visits could resume gradually. They decided mother
    could write M.S. letters, and M.S.’s therapist would give her the letters.
    Mother wrote M.S. only one letter during the six months before the
    termination hearing. Additionally, mother remained in a violent
    relationship and eventually married her abuser.
    ¶7          The superior court held a four-day contested termination
    hearing between June and December 2020, after which it terminated
    mother’s parental rights under the ground alleged. Mother timely
    appealed. This court has jurisdiction under article VI, section 9, of the
    Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. § 8-235.A.
    ANALYSIS
    ¶8            On appeal, mother challenges the superior court’s finding
    DCS made diligent efforts to provide her with appropriate reunification
    services. She argues “DCS allowed [her] parent-aide services to lapse for an
    extended period” and “did not provide critical support and services which
    would allow [her] to have regular contact with [] M.S. and that would assist
    her in enhancing her parenting skills.” She further says her “mental health
    challenges” were “exacerbated due to the stress caused by” not being able
    to continue her visits with M.S., and the stress “made it difficult for her to
    engage in the requested services.” In suspending visitation, she argues,
    DCS “purposely failed to offer what seemed likely to benefit her most.”
    ¶9            When seeking to terminate parental rights under the fifteen-
    month out-of-home placement ground, DCS must make “a diligent effort
    to provide appropriate reunification services.” A.R.S. § 8-533.B.8. DCS must
    provide the parent “with the time and opportunity to participate in
    programs designed to help her become an effective parent.” Maricopa Cnty.
    Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 
    180 Ariz. 348
    , 353 (App. 1994).
    3
    VANESSA R. v. DCS, et al.
    Decision of the Court
    ¶10            DCS is not required to provide the parent unlimited time to
    “assume [her] responsibilities and take positive steps toward recovery.” See
    Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501568, 
    177 Ariz. 571
    , 577 (App. 1994).
    Likewise, DCS is not required to “provide every conceivable service” or to
    ensure the parent participates in the services offered. Maricopa Cnty. Juv.
    Action No. JS-501904, 
    180 Ariz. at 353
    . The superior court must examine the
    “totality of the circumstances of the dependency” in deciding whether DCS
    has made diligent reunification efforts. See Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety,
    
    247 Ariz. 9
    , 26, ¶ 68 (App. 2019).
    ¶11           Here, DCS arranged regular visits between mother and M.S.
    from September 2018 until April 2019. Because those visits were suspended,
    mother complains DCS did not diligently offer her reunification services.
    But the superior court halted the visits—not DCS. Mother does not
    challenge this ruling on appeal.
    ¶12           Reasonable evidence in the record supports the suspension.
    Evidence offered at a hearing set on DCS’s motion to suspend the visits
    showed six-year-old M.S. displayed sexualized behaviors in February 2019.
    She removed her pants and underwear and asked her foster brother to take
    pictures. When asked why she did so, M.S. replied, “[t]hat is what boys
    like.” Later M.S. stated, “[m]other would want [the pictures], because I am
    only supposed to take those pictures for her.” On occasions corresponding
    with visits, M.S. scratched her vaginal area until it bled. M.S.’s behaviors
    and disclosures led to a criminal investigation, and DCS’s unit psychologist
    recommended suspending visits between mother and M.S. After the visits
    ceased, M.S.’s sexualized behaviors ceased, and she was able to stop taking
    her anxiety medication.
    ¶13            Mother’s argument does not acknowledge she rejected the
    superior court’s offer to reinstate visits if she engaged in services. Though
    the superior court said it would consider reinstating the visits if mother
    could demonstrate “progress regarding mental health treatment and/or
    domestic violence counseling and/or substance abuse treatment,” mother
    did not consistently engage in those services. Even after mental-health
    providers suggested mother write letters to M.S. through her therapist,
    mother wrote only one letter. Regardless of the suspension of her visits with
    M.S., mother overlooks how she created significant barriers to her
    reunification through her failure to engage consistently in the many other
    services DCS offered. By failing to engage in those services, mother passed
    up the opportunity to remedy the substance-abuse, mental-illness, and
    domestic-violence issues that caused her children’s out-of-home placement.
    See A.R.S. § 8-533.B.8(c); see also Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193
    4
    VANESSA R. v. DCS, et al.
    Decision of the Court
    Ariz. 185, 192, ¶ 34 (App. 1999) (DCS need only “undertake measures”
    having “a reasonable prospect of success” towards reunification).
    ¶14           Mother suggests the suspension of visits exacerbated her
    mental-health issues and made it more difficult for her to participate in
    services. But she points to no evidence in the record to support that
    proposition. Indeed, even before the superior court suspended visitation,
    mother’s participation in substance-abuse and behavioral-health services
    was sporadic.
    ¶15          Mother said she missed these services because of “the
    weather” and her depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress
    disorders—not because her visitation was suspended. The record also
    established mother’s mental-health issues and abusive relationship with
    her husband, which continually destabilized her and impeded her progress,
    were the main impediments to mother’s engagement.
    ¶16           Reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s finding
    DCS made diligent efforts to provide mother with appropriate reunification
    services, including visitation. See A.R.S. § 8-533.B.8; Maricopa Cnty. Juv.
    Action No. JS-501904, 
    180 Ariz. at
    352–53 (finding the provision of “time and
    opportunity” to participate in remedial services to be sufficiently diligent).
    CONCLUSION
    ¶17          We affirm the order terminating mother’s parental rights to
    M.S. and R.R.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-JV 21-0014

Filed Date: 6/29/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/29/2021