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 AR I Z ONA DE P AR T M E NT OF E C O N O M IC S E C U R IT Y , C L A R IS S A O ., S A V A N N A O ., T O N Y E ., a n d G U A D A L U P E E ., A pp el l ants , v . O S C A R O ., A ppel l ee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- J V 2003- 0075

2 C A
- J V 2003- 0076 2 C A
- J V 2003- 0077 ( C ons ol i dat ed) 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. 15625600 H onor abl e H ect orE
. C ampoy , J udge RE VE RS E D AND R E M ANDE D WI T H DI RE CT I ONS
T err yG oddar d, A r i zona A t t or neyG ener al B yM i chel l e R
. N i m m o

La w Of f i c e o f Cyn t h i a D. Ett i n g e r , P
. C. B yC ynt hi a D
. E t t i nger

Ch e r y l S
. Bl u m, P
. C. B yC hery l S. B l um T ucs on A t t orney s forA ppel l ant A riz o n a D e p a rtm e n t o f E c o n o m ic S e c u rity

T ucs on A tto rn e yf

o r A p p e llan ts Cl a r i s s a O. a n d S a v a n n a O.

T ucs on A tto rn e yf

o r A p p e llan ts To n yE. a n d Gua d a l u p e E.

N O V 30 2004 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

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

M at t hew A
. J as per T ucs on A t t orneyforA ppel l ee
E S P I N O S A , J u d g e .
¶1 I n t h i s a p p e a l , t h e Ar i z o n a De p a r t me n t o f E c o n o mi c S e c u r i t y( ADE S ) a n d t wo ch il d ren co n tend the ju v en il e co u rt erred b yd en y ing A D E S ’s m o ti o n to term inate the fa ther’s p a re n tal rig h ts, d e sp ite the e x iste n c e o f a sta tu to ryg ro u n d f

o r se v e ra n c e a n d th e im m e d iate
av ail ab il ity o f

a su it ab le ad o p ti v e p lace m en t fo r th e c h il d ren , b ase d so lel yo n the c o u rt ’s fi ndi ng t hat t erm i nat i ng t he father ’ s r i ght s i s not i n t he chi l dr en’ s bes ti nt er es t s . B eca us e the
r ecor d cont ai ns no r eas onabl e evi dence t o s uppor ts uch a f i ndi ng but , r ather , es t abl i s hes t he
c h ild r e n ’ s len g th yo u t-o f -h o m e p lac e m e n t, th e m a rg in a l n a tu re o f th e f a th e r’s re latio n sh ip
w i t h t he chi l dr en, pot ent i al harm t o the chi l dr en fr om cont i nui ng the r el at i ons hi p, and avai l abi l i t yof a good a dopt i ve home, w e concl ude t hatthe tr i al cour terr ed i n nots ever i ng th e f a th e r’ s p a re n ta l r ig h ts .

Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound ¶2 C lari ssa O
. , b o rn S ep tem b er 2 , 1 9 9 8 , an d S av an n a O
. , b o rn M arc h 1 , 2 0 0 1 , are t h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d o f f o u rc h i l d r e n b o r n t o a p p e l l e e Os c a rO. a n d h i s wi f e , L y d i a O. C l ar i s s a and Sava nna w er e adj udi cat ed depe ndenti n J ul y20 0 1
. F o ll ow i ng a perm anenc y h e a rin g in O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 , the ju v e n ile c o u rt d ire c ted A D E S to f ile a m o tio n to ter m in a te b o th parent s’ ri gh t s t o the gi rl s.3

¶3 L y di a then exe cut ed a r el i nqui s hm entof her par ent al r i ght s , cons ent i ng t o t he g irls’ a d o p tio n b yth e ir m a ter n a l au n t an d u n c le, a p p e llan ts T o n y E
. a n d G u a d a lu p e E ., w ith
w h o m th e yh a v e b e e n liv in g sin c e Ju n e 2 0 0 1 . T h e ju v e n ile c o u rt ter m in a ted L y d ia’ s rig h ts p u rsua n t t o the re li n q u ishm e n t. O s c ar c o n test ed the s ev era n ce o f h is r igh ts, an d af ter a len g th yh e a rin g , the ju v e n ile c o u rt f o u n d A D E S h a d p ro v e d th e sta tu to ryg ro u n d a lleg e d , o u tof- hom e pl ace m entpur s uantt o A
. R
. S. § 8- 533( B ) ( 8) ( b)
. T he courtnonethel es s deni ed the
m oti on t o s ever O scar ’s ri gh t s, fi nd i ng that t erm i nati ng them w ou l d b e con t raryt o the best in te re s ts o f

th e c h ild re n . See § 8- 533 (B ). A D E S, the chi l dr en, and the chi l dr en’ s fos t er p a re n ts a ll a p p e a l f

ro m th e ju v e n ile c o u rt ’s ru lin g .

St andard of R evi ew ¶4 A s t he j uveni l e cour tacknow l edged i n i t s m i nut e entr y , t he s t andar d of pr oof i n a c t i o n s t o t e r mi n a t e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s i s c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , Ru l e 6 6 ( C) , Ar i z . R. P . Ju v . C t., 1 7 B A .R .S .; Mich a e l J
. v . A riz o n a D e

p a rtm e n t o

f E c o n o m ic S e c u rity , 196 A r i z. 246, 995 P. 2d 682 ( 2000) , and t he par t ys eeki ng t erm i nat i on bear s the bur den of pe r s uas i on, I n r e M ar i copa C ount

y Ju ve ni l e Act i on N

o. JS- 6831 , 155 A r i z. 556, 748 P. 2d 785 ( A pp. 1988)
. A j uveni l e cour t as t he t r i er of fac t i n a t erm i nat i on pr ocee di ng i s i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o w ei gh t he evi dence , obs erve the pa rt ies, judge t he cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es , and r es ol ve d is p u te d f

a c ts . Jes us M
. v. A r iz . D ep’ tE con. Sec. , 2 0 3 A ri z. 2 7 8 , 5 3 P
. 3 d 2 0 3 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). W e ther efor e ac ceptthe j uveni l e court ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct“unl es s no r eas onabl e evi dence
su p p o rts th o se f

in d in g s” a n d w ill a f

f irm its se v e ra n c e o rd e r u n les s th e o rd e r is c lea rly4

e rr o n e o u s . Jenni

f erB
. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof

E con. Sec. , 189 A ri z. 5 5 3 , 5 5 5, 944 P. 2d 68, 70 (A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). D i s cus s i on ¶5 In th e sin g le is su e ra ise d o n a p p e a l, ap p e llan ts c o n ten d th e re w a s n o re a so n a b le evidence to sup po rtt he juven i l e cou rt ’s con cl usi on t hat i tw ou l d b e con t raryt o the best in ter e sts o f

C lar iss a a n d S a v a n n a to ter m in a te th e ir “ p o sitiv e , tho u g h lim ited , rela tio n sh ip
w i t h t hei rfather
. ” O s car acknow l edges t he cour t fai l ed t o s peci fy any evi dent i arybas i s for i t s concl us i on, but s ugges t s t he cour t “l i kel y cons i der ed” t es t i m ony by var i ous w i t nes s es t hat t he w eekl y s upervi s ed vi s i t s betw een O s carand the gi r l s w er e pos i t i ve, appr opr i at e, and app arent l yenjoy able and thatt he g i rl s di spl ay ed af fect i on to w a rd O scar du ri ng t he v i si t s. N ow her e i n t he j uveni l e court ’ s l engthym i nut e entr y , how ever , di d i tm ent i on anyof the t es t i m onyO s carci t es . T he omi s s i on i s not abl e her e bec aus e of t he vol um e of otherevi dence t he courtdi d s peci fi cal l yr efe rt o i n i t s s even- page rul i ng. ¶6 T o est abli sh t hat t erm i nati ng O scar ’s parent al ri gh t s w as i n the chi l dren’s best i nt er es t s , A D E S w as r equi r ed t o s how t hatt he gi r l s w oul d der i ve an a ffi r m at i ve bene fi tfr om te rm in a tio n o r in c u r a d e tr im e n t b yc o n tin u in g in th e re la tio n s h ip
. J e n n i f e rB. , 189 A r i z. at 5 5 7 ; see al

so I n r e M ar i copa C ount

y Juv eni l e Act i on N

o. JS- 500274 , 167 A r i z. 1, 5, 804 P. 2d 7 3 0 , 7 3 4 (1 9 9 0 ). T h e e x iste n c e o f a c u rre n t a d o p tiv e p lan is o n e w e ll-re c o g n ize d e x a m p le
o f s u c h a b e n e f

it. I d. ; Jam es S. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 193 A r i z. 351, 972 P. 2d 684 (A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); I

n r e M ar i copa C ount

y Juv eni l e Act i on N

o. JS- 6520 , 157 A r i z. 238, 756 P. 2d5

335 ( A pp. 1988) ( bes ti nt er es t s of chi l d i n p o tentia l l yfos t er - adopt i ve home favor ed
se v e ra n c e so c h ild c o u ld b e f re e f o r a d o p tio n ); I

n r e M ar i copa C ount

y Juv eni l e Act i on N

o. JS- 8441 , 175 A r i z. 463, 469, 857 P. 2d 1317, 1323 ( A pp. 1993) ( “The benef i t of s ever ance t o t he chi l d i s t hatw hi ch the l egi s l atur e i nt ended: fr eedom t o be adopt ed i nt o a s t abl e and
n u rtu rin g h o m e .”); I

n r e Pi m a C ount

y Juv eni l e Act i on N

o. S- 2460 , 162 A r i z. 156, 158, 781 P .2 d 6 3 4 , 6 3 6 (A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) (“T h e im m e d iate a v a ilab ili ty o f a n a d o p tiv e p lac e m e n t o b v io u sly
w e ig h s in f

a v o r o f se v e ra n c e . . . . ” ); s ee al s o I n r e M ar i copa C ount

y Juv eni l e Act i on N

o. JS- 501904 , 180 A r i z. 348, 884 P. 2d 234 ( A pp. 1994) ( even w i t houtfi r m pl an of a dopt i on,
sev era n ce b en ef

it s ad o p table c h il d ren b yfre eing them fo r ad o p ti o n ). ¶7 T he undi s put ed evi dence es t abl i s hed t hat t he gi r l s ’ auntand uncl e ar e w i l l i ng and i m m edi at el yavai l abl e t o adoptt hem. T he gi r l s ar e st i l l veryy oung: w hen the s ever ance trial c o n c lu d e d , C lar iss a w a s f o u r y e a rs o ld , an d S a v a n n a w a s tw o . C lar iss a h a d liv e d w ith t he auntand uncl e s i nce s he w as s even m ont hs ol d, and Savanna s i nce s he w as thr ee mont hs
o l d
. Bo t h g i r l s a r e e mo t i o n a l l ya t t a c h e d t o t h e a u n t a n d u n c l e , wh o m t h e y c o n s i d e r“ mo mmy and daddy , ” and t he j uveni l e courtfound “[ t ] he pl ace m ent , byal l acc ount s , i s verypos i t i ve and has pr ovi ded a n ex tr em elybenef i ci al eff ecton t he chi l dr en. ” The cour tfur t herfound t hatr emai ni ng i n t hi s pl ace m ent i s i n t he gi r l s ’ bes t i nt er es t s . A s faras w e have det erm i ned, t h e r e c o r d i s d e v o i d o f

a n y e v i d e n c e t o th e c o n t r a r y. ¶8 I n co m b ination, t he exi s t ence of a s t atut orygr ound fors ever ance and the i m m edi at e ava i l abi l i t yof a s ui t abl e adopt i ve pl ace m entfort he chi l dr en fr equent l yareSever al w i t nes s es r efe r r e d t o th e p r o n o u n c e dh o s t i l i t yand conf l i ctbetw een O s carand 1 t he gi r l s ’ auntand uncl e. 6 s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt a s e v e ra n c e o rd e r. See e. g. Jam es S. ; Mar i copa C ount y N o. JS- 6520
. T h e juv en il e c o u rtfo u n d b o th h ere b u t also co n clud ed it w o u ld b e co n tr ary to the ch il d ren ’s bes ti nt er es t s ei t hert o t erm i nat e ort o expand thei rl i m i t ed r el at ion sh ip w it h O s car , w hi ch
w a s c o n f in e d to tw o h o u rs o f

su p e rv ise d v isitatio n a w e e k
. T h e c o u rt g a v e n o re a so n f o r its
c o n c lu sio n , b u t f

o llo w e d it w ith th is s tate m e n t: T he C our tacknow l edges t he manybi t t erdi ffi cul t i es t hatt he ad u lt s h av e e n d u red as a resu lto f th is case
. T h e C o u rt acknow l edges t hatt her e i s a gr eatdeal of ani m os i t y betw een the [fos t erpar ent s ] and the fa t her
. T he C our tcannott erm i nat e a par ent ’ s r i ght s due t o the i nabi l i ty o f the adul t s t o have a cooper at i ve r el at i ons hi p. O bvi ous l y , t he court ’ s s t at ementaddr es s ed O s car ’ s par ent al r i ght s , buti tdi d notaddr es s t he bes ti nt er es t s of the chi l dr en. N ordi d t he j uveni l e courtcomm enton t he pot ent i al eff ect s on th e c h ild re n o f a c h ro n ica lly h ig h lev e l o f a n im o sitya n d o n g o in g c o n f lict b e tw e e n th e a d u lts i n thei r l i ves. 1 ¶9 T h e ju v e n ile c o u rt’s f a ilu re to sta te a n e v id e n tiary basi s for i t s c o n tra ry -to -b e sti nt er es t s concl us i on i s par t i cularly not abl e i n l i ghtof the otherobs ervat i ons and fa ctual fi ndi ngs t he courtm ade i n i t s det ai l ed and l engthym i nut e entr y . T heyi ncl ude the fol l ow i ng:

• t hat O scarhas “a ch roni c h ist oryof sub st ance a bu se, ” had i n the past
a b u se d p re sc rib e d n a rc o tic m e d ica tio n s, a n d h a d n o t c o m p lied w ith th e ra n d o m u rin a ly sis
r equi r ement s of hi s cas e pl an;7 • th a t O sc a r h a d a h isto ryo f d o m e stic v io len c e , h a d su b jec ted L yd ia to epi s odes of vi ol ence , and thatt hei ri nappr opr i at el yenmeshe d r el at i ons hi p “r emai ns pr obl emat i c”;

• t hat , “des pi t e the di l i gents ervi ces offe r ed byA
. D
. E
. S
. , ” O scarhad not
a d e q u a telya d d re ss e d th e iss u e s re latin g to h is re latio n sh ip w ith L y d ia, w h ich “ re n d e rs h im unabl e t o adequa t el ypar entt he chi l dr en”;

• t hatL y di a “r emai n[ed] extr emel yuns t abl e as r efl ected in he rr ece nt cont i nued drug us e and s ui ci dal behavi or s , ” and O s car ’ s fai l ur e t o r es ol ve hi s i s s ues “r el at i ng t o hi s r el at i ons hi p w i t h [her ] w oul d cr eat e tr emendous i ns t abi l i t yi n the l i ves of the chi l dr en”;

• t hatO s carhad neve radequa t el ypar ent ed any of hi s chi l dr en, and ther e w as
no s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood he w oul d be abl e t o exer ci s e pr operpar ent al car e and c on tr ol of C l ar i s s a and Sava nna i n t he nea rfutur e;

• that “[ t] h e n eg lectfu l and ch ao ti c li fe sty le to w h ich th e c h il d ren w ere expos ed w hen the depe ndencypet i t i on w as br oughti n t hi s cas e w oul d be r ep ea ted i f the chi l dr en w er e t o be r etur ned t o t he phy s i cal cus t odyof the fa t her ”;

• t hat, al t ho ug h the c ou rtcou l d n ot concl usi velydeterm i ne w hetherC l ari ssa had bee n s exual l yabus ed b ym ember s of O s car ’ s fami l y , heral l egat i ons “demonstr at ed
se v e ra l in d icia o f re liab ili ty ” a n d th a t, b e c a u se O sc a r h a d f latly“ re p u d iate d a n yp o ss ib ili ty t hathi s br ot her o r anyot herfami l ym emberm i ghthave s exual l yabus ed hi s daught er , ” he “w oul d notbe vi gi l antof hi s daught er s ’ cont actw i t h pot ent i al [l y ] harm ful i ndi vi dual s ”;8 • that the g ir ls “co u ld n o t be s af elyreturn ed to” O sca r;

• t hatC l ar i s s a has s pent“mostof herl i fe” and Savanna “the overw hel m i ng
m ajority ” o f h e rs w ith the g ir ls’ m atern al au n t and u n cle in a p lace m en t th at i s “v ery pos i t i ve” a nd “extr emel ybenef i ci al ”;

• t hatr emai ni ng w i t h t hei r aunt and uncl e i s i n t he gi r l s ’ bes t i nt er es t s ; and

• th a t ex p a n d in g th e lim ited re lationshi p they cu rre n tlyh a d w ith O sc a r w o u ld
no tbe in theirbesti nter est s. ¶10 V i r tual l ynot hi ng i n the six a nd one- hal f page s thatpr ece de the cha l l enged
c o n c lu sio n su p p o rts o r e v e n f o re sh a d o w s th e ju v e n ile c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t “ it w o u ld b e c o n tr aryto the b est i n terests of th e c h il d ren to term inate” their relat ion sh ip w ith O sca r. T o t he contr ary , t he courtr eci t ed— w i t hout cr i t i que orcomm ent

— por t i ons of the t es t i m ony
o f se v e ra l w itn e ss e s, n o n e o f w h o m sta ted o r ev e n in tim a ted th a t term in a tin g O sc a r’s rig h ts
w o u ld h a v e a n e g a tiv e e f f e c t o n th e c h ild re n . ¶11 F irst, th e c o u rt n o ted :

A bondi ng and att achments peci al i s t , M r . C huck C hiver t on, re c o m m e n d e d th a t th e c h ild re n re m a in in th e irp la c e m e n t . . . . M r. C h iv e rto n a lso re c o m m e n d e d th a t th e rig h ts of th e p a re n ts be t erm i nat ed. M r . C hi vert on obs erved thatt he chi l dr en i dent i fyt he [auntand un cl e] as t heir at t achm ent fi gu res . T he chi l dren feel sa f e w ith th e [ m ] . . . . C h iv e rto n tes tifie d a t trial th a t b o th C lar iss a a n d S a v a n n a a re v e ryse c u re ly a ttac h e d to th e ir auntand uncl e, t hatC l ari s s a’ s at t achmentt o O s cari s i ns ecur e w i t h s om e avoi dantand9

di s or gani zed behavi or s , and thatSavanna ha s no emot i onal att achmentt o O s caratal l , s eei ng h im in ste a d a s s o lelya so c iab le f ig u re . C h iv e rto n f

u rth e r o p in e d th a t O sc a r w a s u n lik e ly“ to
es t abl i s h an att achment pr oces s w i t h hi s daught er s , ” gi ven t he unre s ol ved i s s ues s urr oundi ng C l a r i s s a ’ s a l l e g e d m o l e s t a t i o n a n d O s c a r ’ s f a i l u r e t o c o m p l e t e i n d i v i d u a l th e r a p y. ¶12 T h e c o u rt n e x t n o ted th e tes tim o n y o f C lar iss a ’s th e ra p ist, w h o c o n c u rre d w ith C hi ver t on’ s as s es s m entt hata dee p b o n d exi s t ed betw een Cl ar i s s a and he rauntand uncl e. T h e the rap isttest ifi ed that sh e h ad n o co n ce rns a t all abo u t th e p rop ri etyo f th e c h il d ren ’s pl ace m ent . She r epor t ed the auntand uncl e had e xcel lent p are n ti ng s ki l l s and had be en
r ece p t i v e a n d r e s p o n s i v e whe n e v e r s h e h a d ma d e s u g g e s t i o n s f o r mod i f y i n g s om e of C l ar i s s a’ s behavi or s . Fur t her , s he t es t i fi ed, i t w as “cr i t i cal ” t o C l ar i s s a’ s devel opm entthat
a p e rm a n e n c yd e c is io n b e m a d e “ s o o n .” ¶13 F inally , the c o u rtalso rec o u n ted th e te s tim o n yo f th e c h il d ren ’s prim ary
c a se w o rk e r, C h e ry l R u ss e ll, to th e e f f e c t th a t th e c h ild re n w e re d o in g e x tre m e ly w e ll in th e ir
c u rre n t p lac e m e n t an d th a t, i n R u ss e ll’s o p in io n , te rm in a tin g O sc a r’s p a re n tal rig h ts w o u ld be i n t hei rbes ti nt er es t s . T he cour t ’ s m i nut e entr yi dent i fi es no t es t i m onyorotherevi dence t o t h e c o n t r a r y. ¶14 W e ar e m ind fu l thatourfunct i on on r evi ew i s nott o r ew ei gh t he evi dence befo re the juven i l e cou rt or supersede i t s asses sm ent of the evi den ce w i t h our ow n. O ur t ask fo r fa ctua l fi n d ing s is so lel y to co n firm that there is so m e rea so n ab le e v iden ce in the rec o rd to s u s ta in th e m . See M ar i copa C ount

y N o. JS- 8441 , 175 A r i z. a t 4 6 5 , 857 P. 2d at131910

(“[ T ]he issue o n ap p ea l i s w h ethe r an yrea so n ab le ev iden ce su p p o rt s the ju v e n ile co u rt ’s fin d ing s. ”). A fter se arc h ing this reco rd, w e c a n fin d n o ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe c o u rt ’s concl us i on t hat t erm i nat i ng O s car ’ s par ent al r i ght s w oul d be contr aryt o the bes ti nt er es t s of C l ar i s s a and Sava nna. ¶15 T he deci s i on by D i vi s i on O ne of t hi s cour ti n M ar i copa C ount

y N o. JS- 6831 pr ovi des an i ns t ruct i ve contr as t . T he j uveni l e cour ti n thatcas e had s i m i l ar l ydeni ed a mot i on t o t erm i nat e par ent al r i ght s , l i kew i s e fi ndi ng t hata s t atut ory gr ound fors ever ance had bee n p ro v e d “ b u t th a t th e b e s t in te re s ts o f th e c h ild re n re q u ir e d d e n ia l o f th e te rm in a tio n p e titio n .” 1 5 5 A ri z . at 55 7 , 7 4 8 P
. 2 d at 78 6
. O n ap p ea l, D ivisi o n O n e f o u n d the ju v en il e c o u rt ’s
con cl usi on supp ort ed b yt he ev i den ce, w hich i tdescri bed as fol l ow s:

B ot h D r . T hal and D r . L avi tt es t i fi ed t h at t he cont actand vi s i t at i on betw een [ t he m other ] and the chi l dr en w as benef i ci al t o t he chi l dr en, t hat t hey r ecogni zed [the mot her ] as t hei rnatur al m ot her , and thatt he pot ent i al fora dee perr el at i ons hi p betw een [the mot her ] and herdaught er s exi s t ed. T her e w as no evi dence t hat deni al of t erm i nat i on w oul d be detr i m ent al t o t he chi l dr en [and] t he r ecor d cont ai ns no r efe r ence t o pot ent i al adopt i on of th e c h ild re n b yth e [ n a tu ra l f a th e r a n d s te p m o th e r]
. . . . Id
. at55 9, 74 8 P
. 2d at 78 8. H ere, con versel y , t here w as no si m i l ar evi den ce t hat the g i rl s’ enj oy abl e w eekl yvi s i t s w i t h O s carw er e trul ybenef i ci al ori m por t an t to t hem and no t es t i m onyaboutt he pos s i bi l i t yof a de eperr el at i ons hi p i n the futur e. I n fac t , s uch evi dence as th ere w as p o inted in the o p p o sit e d ir ec ti o n . In fu rth er c o n tr ast, there w as n o ev iden ce h ere t h a tg r a n t i n g t h e t e r mi n a t i o n wo u l d b e d e t r i me n t a l t o e i t h e r of t h e c h i l d r e n , f

o rwh o m a
s u ita b le , p e rm a n e n t, a d o p tiv e h o m e s to o d w a itin g .11

¶16 L acki ng anys peci fi c evi dence that s uppor t s t he conc l us i on t hatt erm i nat i ng O sca r’ s par ent al r i ght s w oul d s om ehow be detr i m ent al t o hi s y oung daught er s , t he r eco rd i ns t ead s uggests O sca r fa l l s s quar el yw i t hi n t he ca t egoryof par ent s § 8- 533( B ) ( 8) w as
e n a c ted to e n c o m p a ss :

L egi s l at i ve hi s t orys ugges t s t hat t hi s amendm ent[addi ng out - of- hom e pl ace m entas a gr ound fort erm i nat i ng par ent al rig h ts] w a s in re sp o n se to th e in c re a sin g n u m b e r o f c h ild re n in fost er care w ho se parent s m a in ta in p a re n ta l rig h ts b u t re fu se to as s um e par entalr es

pons i bi l i t i es . T he expr es s purpos e of the amendm enti s t o “expe di t e the adopt i on of num er ous chi l dr en w ho r emai n i n t empora r y fos t er car e [for i ndet erm i nat e l engths o f tim e ] w ith n o h o p e o f

b e in g re tu rn e d to th e ir n a tu ra l p a re n ts a n d , in s o d o in g [ ,] p r o m o te a sta b le a n d lo n g -te rm f a m ily environmentfort hes e chi l dr en. ” 1986 A r i z. Ses s . L aw s , C h. 205 §§ 1 and 6. T hus , t he i nt entof t hi s pr ovi s i on w as t o enabl e chi l dr en t o have a perm anentfami l ythr ough adopt i on. Mar i copa C ount

y N o. JS- 6520 , 1 5 7 A riz . at 2 4 3 , 7 5 6 P .2 d a t 3 4 0 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see al so Jam es S
. , 193 A r i z. 351, ¶ 18, 972 P. 2d at689. Pr eci s el y t hat oppor tuni t y forperm anenc y
a n d sta b ili tyis a v a ilab le f o r th e se c h ild re n , w h o
— th e e v id e n c e o v e rw h e lm in g ly
s u g g e s ts

— h a v e v ir tu a lly n o h o p e o f e v e r b e in g p la c e d in O s c a r’ s c u s to d y . D i s posi t i on ¶17 A l t ho ug h a juven i l e cou rtcl earl yhas authori t yt o den y severance w hen the b est i nt er es t s of the chi l dr en w i l l not be s erved t her eby , t he cour t her e art i cul at ed no r eas on for
s uch a f i ndi ng, nordoes t he evi dence s uppl yone. H avi ng s ear ched t he r ecor d i n vai n forany
r eas onabl e e v idence t o s ugges tt hats ever ance and adopt i on w er e noti n C l ar i s s a’ s andI n I n r e M ar i copa C ount

y Juv eni l e Act i on N

o. JS- 500274 , 167 A r i z. 1, 804 P. 2d 730 2 (1 9 9 0 ), th e su p re m e c o u rt re v e rse d a c o n c lu sio n th a t ter m in a tio n o f a f a th e r’s rig h ts w a s in t he bes ti nt er es t s of the c h i l d, hol di ng thathi s pas tabandonment , s t andi ng al one, di d not ju stif yse v e ra n c e w ith o u t ad d iti o n a l p ro o f o f so m e a f

f irm a tiv e b e n e f

it to th e c h ild th a t w o u ld resu ltfro m sev era n ce . T h e c h il d in tha t case w as u n rep rese n ted b yco u n sel, an d the c o u rt not ed that“the r ecor d on t he i s s ue of the bes ti nt er es t s of t he chi l d m i ght have be en i m pr oved i f [the chi l d] had bee n appoi nt ed i ndepende ntcouns el
. ” Id
. at 8 , 8 0 4 P. 2d at737. H er e, C lari ssa a n d S av an n a h ad ind epende ntcoun sel, w h o su p p o rt ed the e ff o rtto term inate O sca r’s ri gh t s. 12 Savanna’ s best interes t s , and fi ndi ng cl ear , convi nci ng, and vi r tual l yuncontr over t ed 2 evi dence i n the rec o rd t o s uppor tj us tthe oppos i t e conc l us i on, w e r ever s e the or derof the juv en il e c o u rtan d rem an d the c ase w ith d ir ec ti o n s to g ran t th e m o ti o n to term inate O sca r’s p a re n ta l r ig h ts .

PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

J O H N PE L A N D E R , C hi ef J udge

M
. J A N FL Ó R E Z , Pr es i di ng J udge