Court Opinion

ID: 9598944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:13:19.294535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:43.540864
License: Public Domain

HATHAWAY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The facts of this case conjure up a terribly unfortunate scenario and I, along with my colleagues, am loathe to allow it to recur. However, unlike my colleagues, I am convinced that there exists no statutory or case law allowing the state to proceed with its proposed remedy of the situation, i.e., declaring the remaining children dependent for the purpose of providing medical care. What the majority opinion has accomplished is to create a status for children heretofore unknown in Arizona — “an-ticipatorily dependent” children. The danger of such a creation is staggering in its possible misuse. In the absence of legislative authority for its creation, it should not be allowed to take root in this state’s body of juvenile law.
The very language of A.R.S. § 8-201(10), cited by the majority, excludes from its coverage the children involved herein. The children are not “[i]n need of proper and effective parental care and control” pres*170ently and subsection (a) certainly is referring to a current need. Subsection (b) refers to children who are not provided with the necessities of life and children who are abused or neglected. I agree with the majority that the statutes are intended to insure that children are properly cared for by their parents and that this care includes medical attention. However, the authority cited by the majority is two criminal cases where the presently existing neglect of children is alleged to maintain a case for criminal penalties and a United States Supreme Court case, Parham v. J.R., supra, which has as its narrow focus the question of whether a child who has demonstrated a current need for mental health care is due some constitutional safeguards where his parents or guardian seek state-administered institutional mental health care for him. That case also can support my position since its focus is the states’ power to control parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or mental health is being jeopardized. The children involved herein are not presently faced with their physical or mental health being jeopardized. The citation to Corpus Juris Secundum is again only support for the proposition that where a current medical need of a child has arisen, the courts are empowered to intervene. With that I have no disagreement.
The majority’s opinion secondarily attempts to label these children dependent under the abuse definition of A.R.S. § 8-201(2), which is allowed under A.R.S. § 8-201(10)(a). Again I would stress that the statute is addressing current situations when it defines “abuse” as “the infliction of physical or mental injury or the causing of deterioration of a child.” The majority emphasizes “failing to maintain reasonable care and treatment” and the fact that the child’s “health, morals or emotional well-being is endangered.” A.R.S. § 8-201(2). I would emphasize “failing” and say the parents herein have not failed in relation to the children before us, and “is” and say that that connotes a present-day status that has not been shown to exist herein.
I have searched for authority for the proposition that the state has the right to declare children dependent before a present danger exists to their well-being and have found but one, Heinemann’s Appeal, supra, cited by the majority. The majority has cited over twenty cases to bolster its position, but I believe my colleagues would not challenge the fact that that one case is the only one on point with this one presently facing us. The others either involve criminal prosecutions for alleged on-going abuse or neglect and abuse or neglect that has already occurred, see, e.g., People v. Edwards, supra; In re M., supra; People v. Arnold, supra; State v. Williams, supra; Matthews v. State, supra; cases involving the presently existing need for medical attention in civil proceedings, see, e.g., In re Rotkowitz, supra; Mitchell v. Davis, supra; State v. Perricone, supra; In re Karwath, supra; Matter of Ray, supra; In the Matter of Gregory S., supra; In re Sampson, supra; In the Matter of T.Y.K., supra; In re Welfare of Price, supra; In re Carstairs, supra; People in the Interest of D.K., supra; cases where children are removed from their homes because their parents are deemed likely to physically abuse them based on their prior abuse of other children in the home, see, e.g., In re Baby Boy Santos, supra; In re J., supra; or cases where the parent is deemed unfit, due to a mental illness, to properly care for a child, see, e.g., In re Maria Anthony, supra. The majority cites In re Welfare of Price, supra, and makes it appear similar to our situation, stating that the court removed a third child from a home, even though she had no disease, after evidence showed that two other children with tuberculosis were not provided medication and attention to their medical needs. That case is at the other end of the spectrum from the instant one. The court there noted that the evidence supported the findings that the children were constantly in dirty clothing, that the parents failed to feed or supervise them adequately, and that the home was filthy, “even to the extent of containing, on occasion, animal and human excrement.” 535 P.2d at 477. Indeed, the court found that the third child herself was clearly malnourished.
*171In short, the majority’s attempt to bolster its gut reaction to the instant situation has not met with a plethora of authority. As to the authority of Heinemann’s Appeal, I can only express my hope that a 101-year-old lower court case out of New York will not be the sole support for my colleagues’ creation of the category, “anticipatorily dependent” children.
By that term I refer to the now real possibility of the state’s filing dependency petitions in any parent-child situation where it will attempt to prove that an act of dependency will1 occur in the future. The majority states, without benefit of authority, “Certainly if a parent would state that she intends to withhold food or shelter from her children, and it is demonstrated that the parent has done so in the past with a death occurring, the state would have a right to intervene.” I disagree. If a parent on January 1,1982, states: “I am going to deny my child, X, food beginning January 1, 1983,” the majority would maintain that the state can have that child declared dependent as of January 1, 1982. Such a result follows under the new doctrine of “anticipatorily dependent” children and is absurd. Under our statutes, that child is subject to being declared dependent on January 1,1983, if food is being withheld. The evidence before the trial court was that, aside from the mother’s quarrel with traditional notions of medical care, the home environment would in no way support a finding of dependency. The instant case is even more absurd than my above hypothetical since in the hypothetical a definite date of January 1, 1983, is given for when the dependency status under the statutes will begin; in the instant case, on the other hand, the remaining children may never have need for traditional methods of medical care. We are all aware of persons, now elderly, who have managed to get through their lifetimes without (some would argue because of a lack of) traditional medical care. Here, when the children reach the age of majority, they will be able to choose what avenue they might like to follow for their physical well-being. Where no present need now exists for declaring these children dependent, why is the state intervening? Would the state obtain a list of Jehovah’s Witnesses (who, because of religious beliefs, would deny their children a blood transfusion indisputably necessary to save the child’s life) and file dependency actions as to those “anticipatorily dependent” children prior to the need for the transfusion — indeed, in no anticipation that such transfusions may ever be needed? Under the majority opinion, such a result would be possible and cannot possibly be supported under the current state of our statutory and case law.
I would affirm.

. I take it as given, as does the majority, that these parents, presented with an identical situation involving a surviving child, would again deny that child traditional medical care.