Court Opinion

ID: 9555059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 17:04:01.439717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:04.174942
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                 IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.Y. and G.Y.

                              No. 1 CA-JV 23-0052
                               FILED 8-10-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JD41678
                   The Honorable Gregory Como, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate, Mesa
By Suzanne W. Sanchez
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa
By Emily M. Stokes
Counsel for Appellee

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.
                IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.Y. and G.Y.
                         Decision of the Court

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1           Brent Y. ("Father") appeals the superior court's order
adjudicating his children A.Y. and G.Y. dependent. For the following
reasons, we affirm.

              FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            "On review of an adjudication of dependency, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court's
findings." Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 231, 235, ¶ 21 (App.
2005). Britney P. ("Mother") did not challenge the dependency order and is
not a party to this appeal.

¶3             In 2013, Father and Mother lost a son to cancer. Following the
loss of their son, Mother began taking anti-depressants, and Father began
abusing Tramadol, a narcotic drug prescribed to him for back and shoulder
pain.

¶4           In 2014, Aurora Health Care began treating Father for
substance abuse. Following his treatment, Father received a prescription
for suboxone to assist in the treatment of his Tramadol addiction, and for
pain management.

                               First Dependency

¶5           In April 2022, A.Y. and G.Y.'s maternal grandmother
("Grandmother") filed a dependency petition, alleging that Father and
Mother were unable to parent based on substance abuse, mental health, and
neglect grounds. Specifically, Grandmother alleged that Father and Mother
abused substances and could not provide stable housing. The Department
of Child Safety ("DCS") received a report about Grandmother's private
dependency petition and moved to intervene. The superior court granted
DCS's motion.

¶6             In June 2022, the superior court held a dependency trial.
During the trial, a DCS case manager testified that G.Y. said Grandmother
had told him that his parents "snort drugs." The case manager also
acknowledged that Father and Mother were leasing an apartment. Based
on these facts, the superior court dismissed the petition. The court observed
that "[Father] does have housing [and] the children . . . would not be living
on the street." When considering the substance-abuse allegations, the court
stated, "the evidence that was actually presented about drug use, it's very,
very thin" and based only on "what [G.Y.'s] grandmother told him, not what

                                       2
                IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.Y. and G.Y.
                         Decision of the Court

he observed." In response to Father's refusal to comply with the court's
drug-testing order, the court found that, without more, a missed drug test
was not sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof.

                              Second Dependency

¶7            Fifty-one days after the superior court dismissed the
dependency petition, DCS brought a second petition on substance abuse,
mental health, and neglect grounds. But DCS further alleged that shortly
after the dismissal of the first petition, Father and Mother were forcibly
evicted from their apartment, and that both children had witnessed their
"parents snorting white pills."

¶8            DCS referred Father for services, including periodic drug
testing, and requested that Father sign a release for his medical records.
Father did not complete the drug testing and refused to sign any releases,
leading DCS to move for a court order for Father's medical records. The
superior court granted the motion, but DCS never requested the records.

¶9             The superior court held the second dependency trial. Mother
failed to attend the trial, and Father attended telephonically. At the trial's
conclusion, the superior court found A.Y. and G.Y. dependent as to both
parents on the substance-abuse and neglect grounds. The superior court
also included findings that "Father's testimony . . . has not been very
credible."

¶10           After the deadline to appeal had expired, Father moved the
superior court for more time to file an appeal. The superior court granted
the motion. Father timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and -2101(A)(1).

                                DISCUSSION

¶11           Father argues that DCS presented insufficient evidence to
establish that drug abuse rendered him unable to parent his children
effectively. We review the superior court's decisions for an abuse of
discretion and will affirm unless no reasonable evidence supports the
court's findings. Louis C. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 484, 488, ¶ 12
(App. 2015); Bob H. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 225 Ariz. 279, 281, ¶ 9 (App.
2010). The superior court must find a child dependent by a preponderance
of the evidence and "must consider the circumstances as they exist at the
time of the dependency adjudication hearing in determining whether a
child is a dependent child." Shella H. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47, 48,
¶ 1 (App. 2016); Louis C., 237 Ariz. at 490, ¶ 23.

                                        3
                IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.Y. and G.Y.
                         Decision of the Court

¶12           The superior court "is in the best position to weigh the
evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of the witnesses, and
resolve disputed facts." Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332,
334, ¶ 4 (App. 2004). We agree with the superior court that the evidence "is
not particularly strong in this case," but affirm because there is reasonable
evidence to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Father was
"unable to provide effective parental care due to substance abuse." See
Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92, 94, ¶¶ 6–7 (App. 2009)
(observing that substantial evidence is evidence "which would permit a
reasonable person to reach the trial court's result" (quoting In re Est. of
Pouser, 193 Ariz. 574, 579, ¶ 13 (1999))).

¶13            Father admitted that he suffered an addiction to Tramadol in
2014, which caused him to seek inpatient rehabilitation treatment. Father
was prescribed suboxone to treat his addiction and he continues to use the
drug as a non-opiate pain management treatment. But the case manager
testified that suboxone can be misused and abused. And the case manager
testified that A.Y. and G.Y. told her that they saw Father snorting crushed
white pills, that G.Y. identified as suboxone. Although the children did not
testify about their observations directly, Father did not challenge the
statements as unreliable, and the superior court accepted those statements
as evidence. See A.R.S. § 8-237 (allowing a minor's reliable out-of-court
statements to prove abuse or neglect in a dependency).

¶14            While Father argues that drug-use allegations mirror
evidence rejected by the superior court in the first dependency trial, there
is a key difference. During the first trial, the allegation that Father
"snort[ed] drugs" was based on information conveyed by Grandmother to
G.Y., not the child's own observations. But in the second trial, a witness
testified that both children said they had personally "seen their parents
snorting white pills."

¶15            The superior court also took a negative inference from
Father's failure to submit to several drug tests. See Jennifer S. v. Dep't of Child
Safety, 240 Ariz. 282, 287–88, ¶¶ 21, 25 (App. 2016) (citing parent's "refus[al]
to take most of her required drug tests" as support for finding that drug
abuse was ongoing); Kara B. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 1 CA-JV 21-0001, 2021
WL 2425907, at *3, ¶ 15 (Ariz. App. June 5, 2021) (mem. decision) ("Mother
could have rebutted that negative inference by complying with requested
drug tests and demonstrating sobriety, but she was unwilling to do so.").

¶16         Father failed to comply with the superior court's order to take
a drug test during the first dependency trial. During the second

                                        4
                IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.Y. and G.Y.
                         Decision of the Court

dependency proceedings in August 2022, DCS referred Father for drug
testing. Despite several efforts to reach him, Father never completed any
drug tests. The superior court then ordered Father to submit to a drug test
no later than one-week before the second dependency trial. Again, Father
disregarded the court's order. At trial, Father explained that he could not
comply because DCS did not return his calls, he could not procure
transportation, and he did not know which drug testing location to use. The
superior court rejected Father's explanation as not credible. See Oscar O.,
209 Ariz. at 334, ¶ 4 (noting that the juvenile court is in the best position to
"judge the credibility of witnesses").

¶17           The superior court did not abuse its discretion by finding that
the negative inference, combined with A.Y. and G.Y.'s first-hand
observations of substance abuse, were enough to meet the preponderance
of the evidence standard.

¶18            Because we affirm the superior court's dependency order
based on Father's substance abuse, we need not reach Father's challenge to
the court's finding of neglect based on the failure to procure A.Y. and G.Y.
adequate shelter. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280,
¶¶ 3–4 (App. 2002) (stating that a court may affirm if reasonable evidence
supports at least one ground).

                               CONCLUSION

¶19          For the reasons described above, we affirm the superior
court's dependency order.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                         5