NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

RUSSELL P., Appellant,

v.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, R.P., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 13-0279

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD510943

The Honorable Peter A. Thompson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson 

By Dawn R. Williams

Counsel for Appellees
RUSSELL P. v. ADES, R.P.

Decision of the Court

2

DECISION ORDER

Presiding Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

K E S S L E R, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Russell P. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

finding his child, R.P., dependent. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) section 

8-201(13)(a)(iii) (2013). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father is the biological parent and sole custodian of R.P.,

who was six-years old at the time of the underlying events. On February 

12, 2013, R.P. told her teacher that her bottom hurt and, in response to the 

teacher’s questions, told the teacher that, Father “pushed too hard and put 

a hammer inside.” The teacher notified the school nurse of the statements, 

who then reported the allegation to the police. The police reported the 

allegation to Child Protective Services (“CPS”) who took custody of R.P. 

and arranged for a forensic interview and physical examination.1

¶3 During the interview, R.P. disclosed that Father “knocked 

her bottom with a hammer.” R.P stated that it happened when she was 

getting ready to go to school and when she got back from school. The 

interviewer was unable to confirm what the child was referring to by the 

term “hammer.” R.P. stated that the hammer was not a part of Father’s 

body but demonstrated with stuffed animals that Father touched her 

crotch area and that Father was partially on top of her on her bed. The 

physical examination report found “no evidence of acute or healed 

injury.” However, the medical provider explained that given the nature of 

alleged sexual assaults, there might not be physical evidence of an injury. 

¶4 Immediately following the forensic interview and physical 

examination, CPS placed R.P. with her paternal aunt and then the paternal 

grandmother pending dependency proceedings. On February 21, 2013, 

 1 The police investigation was later closed for a lack of independent, 

corroborative evidence. 
RUSSELL P. v. ADES, R.P.

Decision of the Court

3

R.P. was admitted to Phoenix Children’s Hospital for mental illness and 

psychotic episodes. While there, R.P. had visual and auditory 

hallucinations and changed her previous allegations against Father, 

claiming an imaginary boy named Aiden hit her with the hammer. 

¶5 R.P. is developmentally delayed and has been diagnosed 

with autistic disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, sensory 

processing disorder, and bipolar disorder. R.P. has a history of auditory 

and visual hallucinations. 

¶6 The court held a two-day dependency adjudication hearing. 

The court heard testimony from two of R.P.’s teachers, R.P.’s forensic 

interviewer, two CPS social workers, and R.P.’s mother, Father, paternal 

aunt, and paternal grandmother. R.P.’s teachers testified that R.P. first 

relayed to them the allegation against Father. The social workers testified 

that R.P. repeated the allegations in the car ride to the hospital and in the 

forensic interview. A recording of the interview was also submitted into 

evidence and the court indicated that it closely reviewed that recording. 

A psychological examination of Father stated that there was little concern 

as to Father except for this alleged abuse, but recommended a 

psychosexual examination of Father. R.P.’s aunt testified that R.P. had 

severe behavioral and psychological issues, including aggression and 

hallucinations, and that Father has been a model parent. R.P.’s paternal 

grandmother testified that R.P. had recanted the allegations against Father 

on several occasions. Father denied any assault occurred. The court 

initially concluded that this was a very close case and a psychosexual 

report of Father would be helpful in deciding the dependency issue, but, 

because the evaluation might delay the court’s ruling on the dependency 

petition, the State objected to having the evaluation ordered.2

¶7 The court held that despite the case being based on a “single 

allegation of abuse brought against what CPS . . . otherwise found to be a 

fit and proper, if not, exceptional, parent” based on all the evidence and 

the credibility of the witnesses, the State proved R.P. was dependent 

 2 Father subsequently participated in such an examination and submitted 

it to the juvenile court. While this appeal was pending, the juvenile court 

returned R.P. to Father. Both parties, however, asked this court to resolve 

the appeal without waiting to see if the juvenile court would dismiss the 

dependency at the next review hearing.
RUSSELL P. v. ADES, R.P.

Decision of the Court

4

based on the allegation of a single incident of abuse.3 Father timely 

appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1) 

(2003).

DISCUSSION

¶8 Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support 

the juvenile court’s finding of dependency. “We will not disturb the 

juvenile court’s ruling in a dependency action unless the findings upon 

which it is based are clearly erroneous and there is no reasonable evidence 

supporting them.” Pima Cnty. Juv. Dependency Action No. 118537, 185 Ariz. 

77, 79, 912 P.2d 1306, 1308 (App. 1994); see also Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action 

No. J-75482, 111 Ariz. 588, 591, 536 P.2d 197, 200 (1975) (“Generally, the 

decision of the trial court as to the weight and effect of evidence will not 

be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. All reasonable inferences must 

be taken in favor of supporting the findings of the trial court, and if there 

is any evidence to support the judgment, it must be affirmed.” (internal 

citation omitted)). 

¶9 “A parent has a constitutional right to raise his or her child 

without governmental intervention. The government may not interfere 

with that fundamental right unless a court finds that: (1) the parent is 

unable to parent the child for any reason defined by statute; and (2) the 

parent has been afforded due process.” Carolina H. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. 

Sec., 232 Ariz. 569, 571, ¶ 6, 307 P.3d 996, 998 (App. 2013). For a child to be 

found dependent, the State must prove one of the grounds found in A.R.S. 

§ 8-201(13)(a) by a preponderance of the evidence, including, for example, 

that the child’s home is unfit by reason of abuse by a parent. A.R.S. § 8-

201(13)(a)(iii). Abuse includes infliction of physical injury or sexual abuse, 

sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, or molestation of a child.

A.R.S. § 8-201(2)(a). 

¶10 Father argues that the court erred in finding that the State 

met its burden of proof, claiming there is no reasonable evidence in the 

record to support a finding of dependency. Father argues that there is no 

physical evidence to support the findings and the allegations were 

irrational. Father further argues that the allegations are not credible 

because they were made by a child who suffers from mental illness, 

including auditory and visual hallucinations, and who has a history of 

 3 The juvenile court also found R.P. was dependent as to Mother. Mother 

did not appeal the ruling and is not a party to this appeal. 
RUSSELL P. v. ADES, R.P.

Decision of the Court

5

making allegations of harm by other caregivers. However, it is not for this 

court to assess the credibility of evidence. See Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action 

No. JV-132905, 186 Ariz. 607, 609, 925 P.2d 748, 750 (App. 1996) (“The 

juvenile court is in the best position to measure the credibility of 

witnesses.”). 

¶11 The juvenile court did not err in finding by a preponderance 

of the evidence that R.P. was dependent as to Father because of a single 

allegation of assault. In weighing the evidence, the court stated it had 

considered the all the testimony and had closely watched the video 

recording of the forensic interview of R.P. The court also considered 

R.P.’s age, medical conditions, recantations, and previous, 

unsubstantiated allegations of assault by caregivers. The court also 

considered the evidence that it is common for children to later recant 

allegations of abuse, but children rarely change the allegation to attribute 

the abuse to another person. The court acknowledged that Father was 

fully cooperative with CPS’s investigation and considered testimony 

pointing to Father’s exemplary parenting but for the single allegation of 

assault, including evidence that Father is a concerned and actively 

engaged parent.

¶12 We agree with the juvenile court that this is a difficult case. 

As the court explained:

The decision here is a difficult one . . . [in] 

dealing with the possibility of an incorrect 

ruling. Children who are untruthful, who have 

imaginary friends . . . who are poor witnesses 

of events or unable to recall or describe details 

of their abuse or the perpetrator can still be

victims of molest or physical abuse. Parents 

and caregivers can also be caught up in what 

are later learned to be false allegations against 

them with grave consequences to their lives 

and reputations . . . . [A]t this stage of the case 

the court is tasked with determining whether 

there is a mere preponderance of the evidence 

to sustain a finding of dependency . . . . After 

weighing the credibility of witness testimony 

and the proof presented; . . . the Department 

has established the allegations in the 

dependency petition by a preponderance of the 

evidence.
RUSSELL P. v. ADES, R.P.

Decision of the Court

6

¶13 Despite this difficulty, based on the record and the standard 

of review, there is reasonable evidence to support the juvenile court’s 

decision that R.P. was dependent as to Father.

CONCLUSION

¶14 Having found that the juvenile court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the 

juvenile court’s finding that R.P. was dependent as to Father, we affirm 

the order.