Court Opinion

ID: 9961410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 17:02:20.273459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:44.770121
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 D.S., T.M., and T.S.

                              No. 1 CA-JV 23-0206
                                FILED 4-18-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JD31954
                 The Honorable Melody Harmon, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate’s Office, Mesa
By Suzanne Sanchez
Counsel for Appellant Mother

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

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:
                 IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO D.S., et al.
                         Decision of the Court

¶1           Terriona M. (Mother) appeals from a finding, after an
evidentiary hearing, that her children are dependent, claiming the court
improperly drew an adverse inference when she refused to testify. Because
Mother has shown no error, the dependency finding is affirmed.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            In September 2022, a family member filed a dependency
petition alleging that Mother abused and neglected three of her children
(T.M., T.S. and D.S.). In October 2022, the Department of Child Safety (DCS)
substituted in as petitioner and filed an amended petition alleging, as to
Mother, physical abuse or failure to protect from physical abuse, neglect
and domestic violence. The court placed all three children with a family
member.

¶3            Mother denied the allegations in the dependency petition.
After some continuances, the court held a dependency adjudication, where
the court received testimony from law enforcement officers and others.
Mother, however, elected not to testify. Counsel for one of the children
asked that the court “draw a negative inference from Mother’s failure to
testify.” Mother’s counsel responded she “has the right to decline to testify
based on what . . . might have an impact on other matters,” apparently
referencing criminal matters.

¶4            At an October 2023 hearing, the court found DCS had proven
that the children were dependent to Mother by a preponderance of the
evidence, noting Mother:

             is unable or unwilling to protect the children
             from physical abuse. The Court did draw a
             negative inference for [Mother’s] failure to
             testify. The Court does find that the children
             have been neglected due to lack of food, and
             that the [M]other is unwilling or unable to
             provide proper parental care due to domestic
             violence. The Court finds that the neglect and
             abuse not only was credible from the children,
             but that it was corroborated by markings on
             their body, with both old and new bruises and
             scarring.

This court has jurisdiction over Mother’s timely appeal from the
dependency finding pursuant to Article 6, Section, 9, of the Arizona

                                     2
                  IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO D.S., et al.
                          Decision of the Court

Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 8-235(A), 12-
120.21(A) and 12-2101(A) and Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 602-03 (2024).1

                                DISCUSSION

¶5             Citing Melissa W. v. Department of Child Safety, 238 Ariz. 115
(App. 2015), Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the superior court
improperly drew an adverse inference about her failure to testify. Mother
argues that the court erred because her “testimony would not have
contained facts not otherwise available.” Melissa W., however, did not hold
that a juvenile court is only allowed to draw an adverse inference when a
parent has unique testimony. Instead, the court emphasized the importance
of a parent’s testimony in assessing that person’s ability to parent. 238 Ariz.
at 117 ¶ 8 (“Melissa points out that others could have or did testify about
those topics. While accurate, this observation does not lessen the
importance of Melissa’s testimony about her ability to parent.”). Indeed,
Melissa W. wrote that “[a] juvenile court’s drawing a negative inference
when a parent fails to testify at a severance hearing is particularly
appropriate,” adding that there is “little benefit in adopting an approach
that would permit a parent to forgo, without consequence, testifying about
his or her ability to parent or about other circumstances relevant to the
court’s determination.” 238 Ariz. at 117 ¶ 6. Thus, the superior court
properly could draw an adverse inference from Mother’s failure to testify
regardless of whether her testimony contained facts not otherwise
available.

¶6              Mother next argues that her right against self-incrimination
and to due process were violated. She contends that she was “forced” to
“choose between her right to due process at her dependency trial and her
right to not potentially incriminate herself.” A witness may claim a Fifth
Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination in any
proceeding. See Ming T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79 ¶ 13 (App.
2001). However, in civil litigation -- like the dependency proceedings here
-- a court properly may draw an adverse inference from the invocation of
that right. See, e.g., Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) (“the Fifth
Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil
actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered
against them”); Wohlstrom v. Buchanan, 180 Ariz. 389, 391 n.2 (1994) (“[I]n
civil cases, fact finders are entitled to draw negative inferences against those

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

                                       3
                IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO D.S., et al.
                        Decision of the Court

who assert Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.”); Montoya
v. Superior Court, 173 Ariz. 129, 131 (App. 1992) (similar).

                             CONCLUSION

¶7           The dependency finding is affirmed.

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

                                      4