I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO
A N T O N IO M ., A p p e llan t,

v . AR I Z ONA DE P AR T M E NT OF E C O N O M I C SE C U R I T Y and D A N IE L M ., A pp el l ees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- J V 2008- 0133

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. 14310300 H onor abl e C har l es S. Sabal os , J udge

AFFI RM ED
C h ild A d v o c a c yC lin ic B y Paul D . B ennett , a cl i ni cal pr ofes s orappea r i ng underR ul e 38( d) , A r i z. R . Sup. C t . , and L in d s e yR ic h a rd s o n a n d E d w a rd M e n d e z , s tudent s cert i fi ed pur s uantt o R ul e 38( d)
T erryG oddar d, A r i zona A t t orneyG ener al B yPenni e J . W ambol dt T ucs on A t t orney s forA ppel l ant

T ucs on A t t orney s forA ppel l ee A r i zona D e p a rtm e n t o f

E c o n o m ic S e c u rity
V Á S Q U E Z , J u d g e . M A Y 14 2009 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

¶1 A ppel l antA nt oni o M . , father of D ani el M . , born i n O ct ober2007, chal l enges the j uveni l e court ’ s or der t erm i nat i ng hi s par ent al r i ght s pur s uant t o A . R . S. § 8- 533( B ) ( 8) ( a) ( ni ne- m onth, out - of- hom e pl ace m ent ) and § 8- 533( B ) ( 4) ( depr i vat i on of ci vi l l i bert i es due t o a fel ony convi ct i on and i m pr i s onm ent ) . A nt oni o cont ends the j uveni l e co u rt erred by f in d in g it w a s in D a n iel’s b e st in ter e sts to b e p lac e d f o r a d o p tio n w ith h is f

o ste r p a re n ts i ns t ead of

hi s pat ernal gr andmot her . H e al s o cont ends the courterr ed b y fai l i ng t o ent er sp ec ifi c f

ac tual fin d ing s re lat ing to the fa ctors juv en il e c o u rt s sh o u ld co n side r be fo re t erm i nat i ng a par ent ’ s r i ght s pur s uant t o § 8- 533( B ) ( 4)
. See Mi chael J. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 1 9 6 A ri z . 2 4 6 , ¶ 2 9 , 9 9 5 P .2 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 8 (2 0 0 0 ). ¶2 A s A nt oni o po int s outi n hi s openi ng br i ef, atthe s ever ance hear i ng, he
a dmi t t e d the tw o s t a tut orygr ou nd s the A r i z on a D e pa r t ment of Eco no mi c Se c ur i ty( A D ES) had al l eged i n i t s m ot i on fort erm i nat i on of hi s par ent al r i ght s . H e onl ycont es t ed w hether
s ever ance w as i n D ani el ’ s bes ti nt er es t s . O n appea l , he fi r s tcont ends the j uveni l e courterr ed in f in d in g it w a s in D a n iel’s b e st in ter e sts to c o n tin u e h is p lac e m e n t w ith a n d a d o p tio n b yh is f o ste r p a re n ts, in lig h t o f th e “ sta tu to ryp re f

e re n c e s” se t f

o r th in A .R .S . § 8 -5 1 4 (B ) th a t a
c h ild b e p lac e d w ith a f

a m ily m e m b e r. A D E S is c o rre c t th a t, on c e A n to n io ’s p a re n tal rig h ts
w er e t erm i nat ed, he no l onger had st andi ng t o chal l enge D ani el ’ s pl ace m entand ant i ci pat ed
a d o p tio n . See Sands v. Sands , 1 5 7 A ri z. 32 2 , 3 2 4 , 7 5 7 P . 2 d 1 2 6 , 1 2 8 (A p p . 1 9 8 8 ). T h e c o u rt
w as , i ndeed, r equi r ed t o cons i derw hetherpl ace m entw i th the gr andmot herw as appr opr i at e,
s ee A . R . S. § 8-53 8 (C ), butonl yaft erfi ndi ng fi r s tthatA D E S had es t abl i s hed s uffi ci ent3

g ro u n d s f

o r t e rm in a tin g A n to n io ’s ri g h ts . See § 8- 538( B ) ( “I f t he cour t fi nds gr ounds fort he te rm in a tio n o f

th e p a re n t- c h ild re la tio n s h ip it s h a ll te rm in a te th e re la tio n s h ip a n d . . . [a] ppoi ntan i ndi vi dual as guar di an of the chi l d. ”) . T hus , the cour t ’ s duty t o “al s o cons i der th e b e s t in te re s ts o f

th e c h ild ” w h e n it c o n s id e rs g ro u n d s f o r t e rm in a tio n , s ee § 8 -5 3 3 (B ), is
s epar at e fr om and pr el i m i nary t o i t s det erm i nat i on of pl ace m ent aft er s ever ance . A s w e have pr evi ous l ynot ed, the courtdoes not“w ei gh al t ernat i ve pl ace m entpos s i bi l i t i es t o det erm i ne” if s e v e ra n c e is in th e c h ild ’s b e st in ter e sts , alth o u g h it m a yc o n sid e r “ th e im m e d iate avai l abi l i tyof an a dopt i ve pl ace m ent ” or“w hether a n exi s t i ng pl ace m enti s m eet i ng the needs of the chi l d. ” A udr a T. v. A r iz . D ep’ t of E con. Sec. , 194 A r i z. 376, ¶ 5, 982 P. 2d 1290, 1 2 9 1 (A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). O n c e th e c o u rt h a d d e ter m in e d se v e ra n c e w a s in D a n iel’s b e st in ter e sts
a n d ter m in a ted A n to n io ’s p a re n tal rig h ts, h e c o u ld n o lo n g e r c h a llen g e D a n iel’s p lac e m e n t. See Sands , 157 A r i z. at324, 757 P. 2d at128. ¶3 M or eover , even a s s um i n g the is s ue of pl ace m entcoul d be vi ew ed as inex tr ica b lyintertw ined w ith the issu e o f D an iel ’s be st i n terests t o term inate A n ton io’s
r i ght s , ther e i s r eas onabl e evi dence i n the r ecor d t o s uppor t the court ’ s fi ndi ng thatpl ace m ent
w ith th e p a te rn a l g ra n d m o th e r w a s n o t in D a n ie l’ s b e s t in te re s ts . See Je su s M
. v. A riz. D ep ’t of E con. Sec . , 203 A r i z. 278, ¶ 4, 53 P. 3d 203, 205 ( A pp. 2002) ( acc ept i ng fac tual fi ndi ngs
w hen s upport ed byrea so n ab le ev iden ce ). T h at ev iden ce inclu d ed the g ran d m o ther’ s cr i m i nal h is to ry a n d th e f

a c t th a t th e f

o s te r p a re n ts w is h e d to a d o p t h im .4

¶4 N ext , A nt oni o co n te nds that , w i th r es pectt o the t erm i nat i on of hi s par ent al
r i ght s pur s uantt o § 8- 533( B ) ( 4) , the j uveni l e courtdi d nots at i s fyi t s “i ndepende ntobl i gat i on t o eval uat e the Mich a e l J. fac t or s t o en su re that the s ent ence [of i m pr i s onm entw as ] l ong e n o u g h to d e p riv e a c h ild o f a n o rm a l h o m e f

o r a p e rio d o f

y e a rs a n d to m a k e a f a ir
a ss e ss m e n t o f

th e c h ild ’s b e st i n ter e sts .” A s A D E S c o rre c tly p o in ts ou t, ho w e v e r, A n to n io d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e th e t e r mi n a t i o n o f h i s r i g h t s p u r s u a n tt o § 8
- 5 3 3 ( B) ( 8 ) ( a ) . Be c a u s e we ca n aff i r m the court ’ s or der as l ong as ther e i s one val i d gr ound for t erm i nat i ng a p are n t’ s ri g h ts , Mi chael

J. , 196 A r i z. 246, ¶ 27, 995 P. 2d at687, w e nee d notaddr es s thi s i s s ue b ec au se itrelates so lel yto the term ination o f A n ton io’s ri g h ts un d er § 8 -53 3 (B )(4). ¶5 W e not e, i n anyevent , th e j uveni l e courts t at ed i thad cons i der ed “a l l of the ci r cumst ance s of t hi s cas e and the re as oni ng and re l evant fac t or s art i cul at ed bythe A r i zona Supr eme C our ti n Mich a e l J. ” and found A nt oni o “has been depr i ved of [ hi s ] ci vi l l i bert i es due t o a convi ct i on of a fe lon y and hi s s ent ence i s of s uch l ength thatthe chi l d w i l l be depr i ved of a nor m al hom e fora per i od of y ear s . ” T h e co ur tent er ed fa ctual fi ndi ngs p e rta in in g to th e lim ited a m o u n t o f tim e A n to n io h a d sp e n t w ith th irtee n -m o n th -o ld D a n iel; the fa ctthat A nt oni o t w i ce ha d been i ncar cer at ed w hi l e the depe ndencyact i on w as pendi ng; thatA nt oni o’ s curr ent , fi ve- y earpr i s on t erm w as i m pos ed i n O ct ober2008; and the fa ctt hat A n to n io w o u ld n o t ev e n b e e lig ib le f o r re lea se u n til 2 0 1 2 . C lea rly , th e c o u rt h a d b e f o re it,
an d co n side red , the ev iden ce relev an t to D an iel ’s b est interests in g en era l and to the fa ctors
s peci fi ed i n Mich a e l J. T h e re f o re , o n th is re c o rd , w e c a n n o t sa yth e c o u rt a b u se d its5

d is c re tio n . S e e J

e s u s M. , 2 0 3 A ri z. 2 7 8 , ¶ 12 , 5 3 P . 3 d at 2 0 7 (ap p ell ate co u rt w il l no t distu rb
o rde r t erm inating p are n tal ri g h ts ab sen t cl ea r ab u se o f d iscreti o n ). ¶6 A ddi t i onal l y , t o the ext ent A nt oni o i s s ugges t i ng the j uveni l e court ’ s or derw as neverthel es s defi ci entbeca us e t he cour t s houl d have m or e s peci fi cal l ys etfor th eac h of the Mich a e l J. fa c to rs it h a d c o n sid e re d , h e d id n o t m a k e th a t o b jec tio n b e lo w . “[ W ]h e n a p a rty fai l s t o obj ectbel ow t o ‘ the al l eged l ack of det ai l i n the j uveni l e court ’ s fi ndi ngs , ’ the i s s ue i s deemed w ai ved w hen ra i s ed for the fi r s tt i m e on appe al . . . . ” M a r c o C. v . S e a n C. , 218 A ri z . 2 1 6 , n .3 , 1 8 1 P .3 d 1 1 3 7 , 1 1 4 1 n .3 (A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), quot i ng C hr is t y C
. v. A riz. D ep ’ tof E con. Sec. , 2 1 4 A ri z . 4 4 5 , ¶ 2 1 , 1 5 3 P .3 d 1 0 7 4 , 1 0 8 1 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶7 W e a f

f irm th e ju v e n ile c o u rt’s o rd e r te rm in a tin g th e p a re n tal rig h ts o f A n to n io to D a n iel.

______________________________________ G A R Y E L . V Á SQ U E Z , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

_______________________________________ PE T E R J . E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

_______________________________________ J . W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R . , J udge