Title: Stansell v. SUPERIOR CT. IN AND FOR CTY., ETC.
Citation: 125 Ariz. 82, 607 P.2d 959
Docket Number: 14741
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: March 3, 1980

125 Ariz. 82 (1980) 607 P.2d 959 Harold R. STANSELL, Imogene L. Stansell and Deborah L. Bedker, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, the Honorable Henry F. Sill, Commissioner, Respondents. No. 14741. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. March 3, 1980. *83 Logan, Marton, Halladay &amp; Hall by Denise St. Angelo, Phoenix, for petitioners. Charles F. Hyder, Maricopa County Atty. by Q. Dale Hatch, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for respondents. HAYS, Justice. This court accepted jurisdiction of the Petition for Special Action and directed Court Commissioner Henry F. Sill to grant the guardianship requested in Cause No. P 120074, In the Matter of the Guardianship of Deborah Leah Bedker, a minor. It was indicated that a written opinion would follow. The commissioner, after a hearing, made the following Findings of Fact: Special action relief was sought from the court's findings and its ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the guardianship. Finding number 6 presents the crux of the matter, and apparently the commissioner and this court interpret the controlling statute differently. A.R.S. § 14-5204 in pertinent part states: It is apparent to us that the parental rights of the mother have been "suspended by circumstances" which fulfills the requirements of the statute. A child over the age of 14 years whose father is deceased, and who is not welcome in the maternal home with a stepfather, surely can, with *84 her mother's consent, claim the bounty of loving grandparents. In oral argument, without contradiction from respondent's attorney, the petitioner's counsel enlarged upon the few bare facts presented in the record by indicating that the child, because of conflict with her stepfather, could not remain in her mother's home. Her presence there made things more difficult for the mother who was ill. This certainly indicates circumstances sufficiently evident to evoke a permissive suspension of the mother's parental rights. The county attorney, in defending the respondent's position, paints a picture of hundreds of parents turning over to grandparents the responsibility of rearing children. This surely evokes the query: what's new? This has gone on since time immemorial. Nor are we persuaded that our Arizona school system will be inundated by children escaping to their grandparents in the sun. Incidentally, grandparents pay school taxes too. If this becomes critical, the legislature in its wisdom can change the wording of the statute. We have examined McNeal v. Mahoney, 117 Ariz. 543, 574 P.2d 31 (1977), and Morales v. Glenn, 114 Ariz. 327, 560 P.2d 1234 (1977), and find nothing therein in conflict with our ruling here. In both cases a parent opposed the guardianship proceedings instituted by grandparents. Relief granted. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., HOLOHAN, V.C.J., and CAMERON and GORDON, JJ., concur.