Court Opinion

ID: 9386794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 17:02:30.855689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.519455
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 J.A.

                              No. 1 CA-JV 22-0221
                               FILED 4-13-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JD537773
               The Honorable Ashley V. Halvorson, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

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

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

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.
                      IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO J.A.
                           Decision of the Court

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1          Tierre A. (“Mother”) appeals from the superior court’s
dependency disposition order. We affirm.

              FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2             Mother is the natural parent of J.A. (“Son”), who is seventeen
years old. Police responded to a welfare check after Son was found alone
outside a homeless shelter in March 2022. He told the officers that he ran
away from home because Mother had punched him, slapped him, and hit
him with a broomstick. Son reported that this abuse occurred a few days
earlier. His left eye was swollen, and his lower lip had a small cut.

¶3           The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) secured physical
custody of Son and placed him in a group home. DCS then filed a
dependency petition, alleging that Mother abused and neglected Son, and
was unwilling or unable to provide proper and effective parental care and
control. Mother contested the dependency, and the court held an
evidentiary hearing. Mother and two DCS professionals testified. The
court found Son dependent.

¶4             Mother requested clinically-supervised therapeutic visitation,
but DCS denied that request. DCS referred Mother to parenting classes,
and offered her mental health services, transportation services, case aide
services and a psychological evaluation. At a disposition hearing in August
2022, DCS requested an independent living case plan. Mother objected and
requested a concurrent case plan of family reunification and independent
living. The superior court granted the independent living case plan, and
denied Mother’s request for therapeutic visitation, ordering that visitation
occur at Son’s discretion. Along with that, the court ordered DCS to
“continue to inform the child of Mother’s desire to visit, and her desire to
restore their relationship through counseling.”

¶5            Mother filed an untimely appeal, but the superior court
granted Mother’s motion to excuse the untimely filing. We have
jurisdiction. See A.R.S. §§ 8-235 and 12-120.21(A)(1).

                                DISCUSSION

¶6            We review the superior court’s dependency order for an
abuse of discretion, Shella H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47, 50, ¶ 13
(App. 2016), and accept its findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, Michael
M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 230, 233, ¶ 10 (App. 2007). This court

                                       2
                    IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO J.A.
                         Decision of the Court

affirms a finding of dependency unless it is supported by no reasonable
evidence. Shella H., 239 Ariz. at 50, ¶ 13.

¶7              Arizona law defines a dependent child as a child who needs
“proper and effective parental care and control,” but “has no parent or
guardian . . . willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care and
control.” A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(i). A child “whose home is unfit by reason
of abuse [or] neglect” might also be considered dependent. A.R.S. § 8-
201(15)(a)(iii).

¶8            Mother first argues the superior court erroneously adopted
an independent living case plan instead of a concurrent case plan of
independent living and family reunification. But “[i]f placement with the
child’s parents is contrary to the child’s welfare, the court may place the
child . . . in accordance with the child’s best interests . . . [i]n [an]
independent living program.” A.R.S. § 8-845(A)(5).

¶9              We discern no abuse of discretion because the record has
reasonable evidence to support the superior court’s decision. First, Son is
seventeen years old and refuses to visit Mother. Second, Son’s behavioral
health providers concluded that Son should not be forced to visit Mother.
Mother also recognized this tension at the disposition hearing, when she
admitted that she did not want to force Son to visit. Third, the court found
based on a credibility assessment that Mother physically abused Son, and
we do not reweigh credibility determinations. See Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t
of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174, 178, ¶ 15 (App. 2014).

¶10             Mother next contends DCS did not make diligent
reunification efforts because she was never offered therapeutic visitation.
This argument fails too. First, this is a dependency adjudication and not a
termination action, and diligent reunification efforts are required before
DCS terminates a parent’s rights. Cf. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8) and § 8-846(A)
(“[I]f the child has been removed from the home, the court shall order [DCS]
to make reasonable efforts to provide services to the child and the child’s
parent.”). Second, as explained above, Son had refused to visit Mother and
his behavioral health providers said he should not be forced to visit.

                                     3
            IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO J.A.
                 Decision of the Court

                      CONCLUSION

¶11   We affirm.

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

                                4