Court Opinion

ID: 9948527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 16:04:40.898621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:22.766369
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 J.B. and A.B.

                               No. 1 CA-JV 23-0160
                                 FILED 3-7-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JS519624
            The Honorable Amanda S. Chua, Judge Pro Tempore

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

David W. Bell, Mesa
Counsel for Appellant Father

Vierling Law Offices, Phoenix
By Thomas A. Vierling
Counsel for Appellee Mother

Denise L. Carroll, Scottsdale
Counsel for Appellees J.B. and A.B.

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.
       IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.B. and A.B.
                      Decision of the Court

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1           Christopher B. (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order
terminating his parental rights to his children J.B. and A.B. For the
following reasons, we affirm.

              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2          In 2018, seven-year-old J.B. and four-year-old A.B. (“the
children”) were living with their mother (“Mother”) and Father in
Pennsylvania. Mother served Father with divorce papers on January 29,
2018. That evening, after discussions with Father about their divorce,
Mother went to sleep.

¶3            The next day, early in the morning, Mother woke and saw
Father walking towards her in the master bedroom with the divorce papers
in his hand and a gun in the waistband of his shorts. Mother reached for
the gun. Father hit Mother’s hand away, grabbed the gun, and pointed it
at Mother’s head. Mother locked herself in the master bathroom and dialed
9-1-1. While Mother was on the phone with 9-1-1, Father fired three shots
into the bathroom door. Father broke down the door, and Mother ran out
of the bedroom, down the stairs, and out the front door. As she ran down
the stairs, Mother heard J.B. say, “Daddy,” and heard Father tell J.B. to go
back to his room. Father still had the gun in his hand when he told J.B. to
go back to his room. Police arrived shortly after Mother ran from the house
and surrounded the house. The children were still inside with Father.

¶4            A SWAT team and hostage negotiator eventually arrived. For
several hours, Father refused to respond to police phone calls and
loudspeaker instructions. The hostage negotiator was unable to defuse the
situation or get the children out of the home. Around 6:30 a.m., police were
able to contact the children, who had been asleep, through a surveillance
system in J.B.’s bedroom. Police told seven-year-old J.B. to get four-year-
old A.B. and exit the front door, and he did so. Father did not help the
children leave, and he refused to leave the home. About five hours later,
the SWAT team entered the home and took Father into custody. Mother
and the children returned to the house that night and observed broken glass
everywhere from windows and a door that police had shot out. Lacking
funds to stay anywhere else, Mother and the children stayed in the
damaged house for several weeks.

                                     2
        IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.B. and A.B.
                       Decision of the Court

¶5             After a jury trial, Father was convicted in Pennsylvania of one
count of aggravated assault, a felony, and four misdemeanors—simple
assault, reckless endangerment, and two counts of endangering the welfare
of children (J.B. and A.B.). In December 2018, the Pennsylvania trial court
sentenced Father to an aggregate term of six to seventeen years in prison.

¶6            In 2019, a Pennsylvania court accepted the parents’ custody
stipulation and granted Mother physical and legal custody of the children
and permission to relocate. Mother and the children moved to Arizona,
and in 2020 Mother petitioned the Maricopa County Superior Court to
terminate Father’s parental rights to the children and simultaneously asked
the court to assume jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.

¶7              The superior court appointed counsel for Father, and in
March 2021, assumed jurisdiction of the case. On the first day of the
termination hearing, Father’s court-appointed counsel moved to withdraw,
and the court allowed counsel to withdraw and continued the termination
adjudication hearing for three days to allow Father’s private counsel to file
a substitution motion. Three days later, Father’s new counsel appeared and
requested a two-week continuance. The court offered to continue the
hearing for three days. When Father’s counsel told the court he was not
available then, the superior court dismissed counsel and ordered Father to
represent himself. Trial commenced that day, with Father appearing
telephonically from prison. Minutes into the hearing, Father told the court
he would soon be disconnected from the call because the hearing notice
stated the hearing would only last one hour, which is what he had told the
prison. After Father left the call, the superior court ordered the trial to
proceed by default. In August 2021, the court terminated Father’s parental
rights to J.B. and A.B.

¶8             Father appealed, and in September 2022, we vacated the
termination order and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the
superior court violated Father’s due process rights by dismissing his
appointed attorney, denying his private attorney a continuance to prepare
for trial, and ordering Father to proceed to trial pro se. See Christopher B. v.
Mia D., 1 CA-JV 21-0356, 2022 WL 4376268, at *1-2, ¶¶ 1, 14 (Ariz. App. Sept.
22, 2022) (mem. decision).

¶9            The superior court appointed counsel for Father and the
children in December 2022. After a five-day termination adjudication
hearing, the superior court terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 8-533(B)(2) (willful abuse),

                                       3
        IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.B. and A.B.
                       Decision of the Court

8-533(B)(4) (length of incarceration for a felony conviction), and 8-533(B)(4)
(nature of felony offense/unfit to parent). The court found that termination
was in the children’s best interests. Father timely appealed, and we have
jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), - 2101(A)(1).

                                DISCUSSION

I.     Abuse

¶10           The superior court may terminate a parent’s parental rights if
“the parent has neglected or wilfully abused a child.” A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2).
“This abuse includes serious physical or emotional injury or situations in
which the parent knew or reasonably should have known that a person was
abusing or neglecting a child.” Id. “Evidence considered by the court
pursuant to subsection B of this section shall include any substantiated
allegations of abuse or neglect committed in another jurisdiction.” A.R.S. §
8-533(C).

       “Abuse” means the infliction or allowing of physical injury,
       impairment of bodily function or disfigurement or the
       infliction of or allowing another person to cause serious
       emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety,
       depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior and
       which emotional damage is diagnosed by a medical doctor or
       psychologist and is caused by the acts or omissions of an
       individual who has the care, custody and control of a child.

A.R.S. § 8-201(2).

¶11           Father “acknowledges that there has been a criminal court
finding in the State of Pennsylvania that he endangered his children” and
“recognizes that his actions on January 30, 2018 did result in emotional
harm to both J.B. and A.B.” He “concurs that a legal ground of abuse has
been proven,” but argues the superior court erred by terminating his
parental rights on the abuse ground because the court determined,
“contrary to the evidence presented . . . that Father had held the children
hostage in the home and suggested the child J.B. witnessed the incident
involving Father shooting the weapon.”

¶12           We view the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be
drawn from it in the light most favorable to affirming the superior court’s
order. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009).
We will not reverse the superior court’s order unless reasonable evidence

                                        4
        IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.B. and A.B.
                       Decision of the Court

does not support the superior court’s factual findings. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 547, 549, ¶ 7 (App. 2010).

¶13            Even if Father had not waived his objection to termination
pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2), we find no error. The superior court found
that J.B. “witnessed the events of that day involving his mother fleeing the
house after his father fired shots from a gun directed at his mother.” Dr.
Shannon Fore, the children’s therapist from 2019 to the time of the 2023
termination hearing, testified that J.B. told her that after Father shot at
Mother, J.B. came out of his room and saw Father with a gun. Dr. Fore
opined that this incident, and later “having to run into the arms of armed
police officers,” was traumatic for J.B. The superior court did not find that
J.B. saw Father shooting at Mother, but rather that he had witnessed Mother
fleeing the house after Father shot at her. And the record reflects that the
children were alone with Father for hours, during which time a hostage
negotiator was unable to get the children out of the home with Father’s
assistance.

¶14           Additional evidence supported the superior court’s
determination that Father abused the children. The court considered a 2019
substantiated child abuse investigation concerning Father and J.B. in
Pennsylvania, which concluded that Father “intentionally, knowingly
and/or recklessly caused” J.B. to suffer serious mental injury. See A.R.S. §
8-533(C). The record also contained two additional substantiated child
abuse allegations from 2018 concerning Father and each of the children.

¶15            The court also considered Dr. Fore’s testimony that J.B. had
disclosed “significant” physical and emotional abuse from Father and had
witnessed Father abuse Mother, and Dr. Fore’s testimony that the events of
January 30, 2018, also traumatized A.B. Dr. Fore additionally testified that
A.B. disclosed having witnessed Father screaming at Mother and J.B. and
hitting J.B. Dr. Fore opined that both children were still affected by complex
trauma. J.B.’s trauma caused him nightmares, night sweats, and significant
anger and interpersonal relationship issues, and Dr. Fore opined that he
had suffered serious emotional injury. Dr. Fore testified that A.B.’s trauma
caused him to have significant anxiety and “nightmares continuously,”
causing him to refuse to sleep in his room without Mother. Both children
regressed behaviorally after writing their letters to the court in lieu of
testifying.

¶16          Dr. Bradley Beckwith was J.B.’s therapist in Pennsylvania for
almost a year, beginning in August 2018. Dr. Beckwith testified that J.B.
had disclosed emotional abuse by Father and had witnessed Father abuse

                                      5
        IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.B. and A.B.
                       Decision of the Court

Mother and opined that J.B. had been traumatized by the abuse. Dr.
Beckwith testified that J.B. exhibited post-traumatic stress symptoms
during his therapy sessions. In addition, as talk therapy with Dr. Beckwith
progressed, J.B. began experiencing gastrointestinal distress caused by his
trauma-related anxiety.

¶17           The Pennsylvania court appointed Dr. Ronald Esteve to
evaluate the children in 2018. Dr. Esteve found that both children had been
severely traumatized and diagnosed them with post-traumatic stress
disorder. Dr. Esteve opined that the children’s trauma was “lifelong,” and
would “impact them in a multitude of developmental ways as they age.”

¶18           We find no error when we view the evidence and the
reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to
affirming the superior court’s termination order. See Jordan C., 223 Ariz. at
93, ¶ 18.

¶19            Because sufficient evidence supported the superior court’s
finding that termination was warranted pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2), we
need not consider Father’s challenges to the alternate grounds of length of
incarceration and nature of the felony offense. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of
Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3 (App. 2002).

II.    Due Process

¶20            Father next argues the superior court violated his due process
right to a fair trial by making “grossly erroneous factual conclusions,
fail[ing] to give proper weight to the plan outlined by the Pennsylvania
Family Court, and [giving] improper weight to several expert witnesses
who had last met with the children five years ago.” According to Father,
Dr. Esteve, who was appointed by the Pennsylvania family court in 2019,
“failed to follow through on the court’s orders related to visitation.” Father
also seems to argue, even though this was a private termination proceeding,
that DCS failed to make reasonable efforts to provide reunification services.

¶21           Dr. Esteve testified that he was appointed by the
Pennsylvania court to assess the children and recommend whether the
children should have supervised phone contact with Father during his
incarceration. In November 2018, Dr. Esteve submitted a psychological
evaluation of the children to the court, recommending they have no contact
with Father. A provision in a subsequent Pennsylvania court order allowed
Father to submit additional information about his status and participation
in mental health services to Dr. Esteve for a reassessment of the no-contact
recommendation.

                                      6
        IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.B. and A.B.
                       Decision of the Court

¶22           In 2019, Father submitted a report to Dr. Esteve from a
psychiatrist indicating Father had impulse control disorder, explosive
tendencies, and a personality disorder. Dr. Esteve testified that he did not
change his no-contact recommendation based on Father’s additional
information. Father cites nothing in the record indicating the Pennsylvania
court ordered the children to have contact with Father. Nor does he argue
he ever asked the superior court for visitation with the children after it
assumed jurisdiction in 2021.

¶23           To the extent Father argues the superior court violated his
rights because he was not provided reunification services, we disagree.
Father cites Jessie D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 251 Ariz. 574 (2021) for this
argument. But Jessie D. is inapplicable because it does not extend to private
petitioners. See 251 Ariz. at 582, ¶ 21 (holding that DCS must make
reasonable efforts to provide incarcerated parents services upon request,
“providing the services will not endanger the child”). And Father cites no
authority for the proposition that reunification services must be provided
when the ground for termination is abuse, even when DCS is the petitioner
(which is not the case here), nor are we aware of any such authority.
Nothing in A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) requires the superior court to find DCS
made diligent efforts to provide reunification services.

¶24            Mother’s expert witnesses were Dr. Fore, Dr. Beckwith, and
Dr. Esteve. Dr. Fore became the children’s therapist when they moved to
Arizona in 2019 and was still their therapist at the time of the termination
adjudication hearing. Dr. Beckwith was J.B.’s therapist in Pennsylvania for
almost a year, beginning in August 2018. Dr. Esteve was appointed by the
Pennsylvania court to evaluate the children in 2018. Father cites no
authority for his argument that the superior court should not have given
weight to Dr. Beckwith’s and Dr. Esteve’s testimony, and in discussing the
witnesses’ testimony in its ruling, the court stated, “[t]he Court finds most
persuasive, testimony from the children’s therapists in particular the
current treating therapist Shannon Fore, that the children would be re-
traumatized should there be further contact with Father.” (Emphasis
added.) The superior court “is in the best position to weigh evidence and
assess witness credibility,” and we will not reweigh the evidence. Brionna
J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 255 Ariz. 471, 478, ¶¶ 28-30 (2023). And as
discussed above, the superior court’s factual findings were supported by
reasonable evidence.

¶25           We find no violation of Father’s due process rights.

                                      7
        IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.B. and A.B.
                       Decision of the Court

III.   Best Interests

¶26             Finally, Father argues the superior court erred by finding that
terminating his parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We do
not reweigh the evidence and will affirm the superior court’s factual
findings if supported by reasonable evidence. Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child
Safety, 240 Ariz. 96, 97, ¶ 6 (App. 2016). “Although fundamental, parental
rights are not inviolate; a court may still sever those rights if it finds clear
and convincing evidence of one of the statutory grounds for severance, and
also finds by a preponderance of the evidence that severance is in the best
interests of the child[].” Id. at 98, ¶ 7. Termination is in a child’s best
interests if the child would “derive an affirmative benefit from termination
or incur a detriment by continuing in the relationship.” Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).

¶27            Dr. Fore testified that any contact with Father would
“seriously impact [J.B.] negatively” and potentially retraumatize him. Dr.
Fore opined that termination would give both children closure and allow
them to heal, “without a never ending . . . cloud over them” about “what’s
going to happen if they have to see [Father] again.” In their letter to the
superior court, both children recounted instances of Father’s abuse and
expressed not wanting to have a relationship with him. The superior court
found that “maintaining [the] parent-child relationship would be
detrimental to the children because Father’s actions on 1/30/2018 that lead
(sic) to his incarceration ha[ve] broken the bonds that may have existed
between Father and the children,” and found that the children were still in
treatment and needed “the space to move past this traumatic time in their
lives and heal, without the presence of Father.” The court considered the
totality of the circumstances and found that termination was in the
children’s best interests. Reasonable evidence supports that finding.

                               CONCLUSION

¶28          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s
order terminating Father’s parental rights to the children.

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

                                        8