Court Opinion

ID: 9913605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 16:02:35.40306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:28.375980
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.M.

                              No. 1 CA-JV 23-0096
                               FILED 12-28-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JD32012
               The Honorable Christopher Whitten, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Denise L. Carroll, Esq., Scottsdale
By Denise Lynn Carroll
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Jennifer R. Blum
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Amanda Adams
Counsel for Appellee A.M.
           IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.M.
                       Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1           Geovanny O. (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order
terminating his parental rights to A.M. (“the child”). For the following
reasons, we affirm.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the
superior court’s termination order. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L.,
223 Ariz. 547, 549, ¶ 7 (App. 2010).

¶3            The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) first removed the
child from Father’s care in November 2019. The superior court found the
child dependent as to Father based on his substance abuse. After Father
completed outpatient substance-abuse treatment, in April 2021, the
superior court dismissed the dependency, and DCS returned the child to
Father’s care. But four months later, Father relapsed, and DCS again
removed the child. DCS alleged the child was dependent as to Father based
on his substance abuse and failure to provide a safe home environment.
Father pled no contest to the allegations, and the superior court found the
child dependent.

¶4            DCS provided Father with drug testing, referrals to
substance-abuse treatment and individual counseling, parent-aide services,
and supervised visitation with the child. Throughout the dependency,
Father tested positive for methamphetamine and failed to participate
consistently in substance-abuse treatment and counseling.

¶5             In September 2022, DCS moved to terminate Father’s parental
rights to the child on the grounds of chronic substance abuse and the child’s
prior removal from Father’s care. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 8-
533(B)(3), (11). Following a pretrial conference, the superior court
permitted DCS to file an amended petition, and, because Father speaks only
Spanish, the court ordered DCS to translate the amended petition into
Spanish. DCS ultimately amended the petition only five business days

                                     2
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.M.
                        Decision of the Court

before the termination hearing, adding the fifteen months’ time-in-care
ground. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). DCS did not provide Father with a
translated copy of the amended petition.

¶6           At the start of the termination hearing, Father moved to
continue the hearing because the amendment was untimely and had not
been translated. The court allowed Father’s counsel to discuss the
amendment privately with Father through an interpreter, but otherwise
denied the motion to continue.

¶7            Father testified that he has been abusing drugs for over a
decade and continued to use methamphetamine weekly. He acknowledged
he was “in a bad place” and that the child should not be around him while
he abused drugs.       The DCS case manager testified that Father’s
participation in reunification services was “minimal at best” and that
Father’s continued substance abuse prevented him from properly
parenting the child.

¶8            Following the hearing, the superior court terminated Father’s
parental rights under the chronic substance abuse and fifteen months’ time-
in-care grounds. Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-
120.21(A)(1), and 12-2101(A)(1), and Rule 601(a) of the Arizona Rules of
Procedure for the Juvenile Court.

                               DISCUSSION

¶9             We review the denial of a motion to continue for an abuse of
discretion. Yavapai Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-9365, 157 Ariz. 497, 499 (App.
1988), modified on other grounds by Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-7499, 163
Ariz. 153, 157–58 (App. 1989). But we review due process claims de novo.
Trisha A. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 84, 88, ¶ 16 (2019).

¶10           Parental rights may be terminated only through
“‘fundamentally fair procedures’ that satisfy due process requirements.”
Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 24 (2005) (quoting Santosky v.
Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 754 (1982)). “Due process requires ‘notice reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the
pendency of the action and to afford them an opportunity to present their
objections.’” Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 355
(App. 1994) (quoting Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-734, 25 Ariz. App.
333, 339 (1975)).

                                      3
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.M.
                        Decision of the Court

¶11           Father argues the superior court violated his right to due
process by denying his motion to continue. He contends that he lacked
sufficient notice of the fifteen months’ time-in-care ground, and the court
was therefore required to grant a continuance to allow him to review the
new allegations and prepare a defense.

¶12           But Father has not shown how any alleged error prejudiced
him. See Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462, 470, ¶ 26 (App. 2014) (“Due process
errors require reversal only if a party is thereby prejudiced.”). Father does
not contest, and the record supports, the superior court’s findings on the
chronic substance abuse ground. Father also had sufficient notice of this
ground. DCS alleged this ground in its initial petition, months before the
termination hearing and his counsel confirmed that she reviewed the
allegations with Father through an interpreter. Moreover, Father’s
testimony made clear he understood that his continued substance abuse led
to the dependency and termination proceedings. The superior court thus
properly terminated Father’s parental rights under the chronic substance
abuse ground and any error allowing DCS to proceed on the fifteen months’
time-in-care ground was harmless. See JS-501904, 180 Ariz. at 355–56
(finding any error in an untimely amendment harmless when the court
properly terminated the parent’s rights on other grounds).

¶13           To the extent that Father argues he was denied due process
because DCS did not provide him a translated copy of its petition to
terminate his parental rights, he has waived this claim by failing to
meaningfully develop his argument or cite any relevant legal authority. See
Melissa W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 238 Ariz. 115, 117–18, ¶ 9 (App. 2015). But
waiver aside, we find no error. As discussed above, Father had adequate
notice of and an opportunity to defend against the chronic substance abuse
ground despite lacking a translated petition. And any error as to the fifteen
months’ time-in-care ground was harmless. Though DCS should have
complied with the court’s order to translate the petition, Father was not
denied due process. See JS-501904, 180 Ariz. at 355 (finding no due process
violation where the parent had actual notice of and an opportunity to
defend against the allegations).

                                       4
      IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.M.
                  Decision of the Court

                        CONCLUSION

¶14    We affirm.

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

                                  5