Court Opinion

ID: 9377353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 18:02:27.969633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.680617
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 A.C.

                              No. 1 CA-JV 22-0202
                                FILED 3-7-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JD38480
                  The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Edward B., Peoria
Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa
By Emily M. Stokes
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
                     IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.C.
                           Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1            Edward B. (”Father”) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
finding his child, A.C., dependent. For the following reasons, we affirm.

                  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
juvenile court’s order. Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1, 2 ¶ 2 (2016).
Father and Graciela M. (“Mother”) are the biological parents of A.C., born
in May 2021.1 In December 2021, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”)
received a report alleging that A.C. had bruises on his face and back.
Mother stated that A.C. had fallen down the stairs, but later admitted that
she had dropped A.C. because she was intoxicated. In January 2022, the
Phoenix Police Department received a 9-1-1 call about a fight between
Mother and Father in an alleyway. The third-party caller observed Mother
punching Father and pushing A.C.’s stroller, causing A.C. to fall to the
ground. Officers responded to the 9-1-1 call, located the parents, and
interviewed them. Mother stated that Father struck her about 20 times, and
one of the strikes hit A.C. in the face. She also stated that Father tried to take
A.C. from her arms, causing A.C. to fall on the ground during the struggle.

¶3            Father stated that he confronted Mother about her drug use,
and she became angry at him. Police officers saw that A.C. had injuries on
his face and appeared dazed, and they took him to a hospital. A medical
examination determined that A.C.’s injuries were likely caused by
non-accidental blunt force trauma. After the incident, A.C. remained in
Mother’s custody, but about a week later, Mother dropped A.C. off at
Father’s house.

¶4           DCS petitioned the juvenile court for dependency, alleging
that A.C. was dependent as to Father due to abuse and neglect and seeking

1     Mother is not a party to this appeal; the juvenile court also found
A.C. dependent as to her.

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

an order placing A.C. in DCS’s custody. The juvenile court granted the
petition and DCS placed A.C. in a foster home.

¶5            DCS offered Father services, including paternity testing,
parenting classes, domestic-violence counseling, visitation, and drug
testing. Father participated in paternity testing, one rule-out drug test, and
visitation. However, he did not participate in the other services because he
claimed that he did “not have a [] case” with DCS. In August 2022, the
juvenile court held a contested dependency hearing.

¶6            At the hearing, Father testified that he was not married to
Mother and was never in a relationship with her. He was not present during
A.C.’s birth because Mother lived in Nevada, and he was incarcerated in
Arizona. Although he was released from incarceration in June 2021—about
a month after A.C. was born—he did not start seeing A.C. until November
2021 when Mother moved back to Arizona. Father never petitioned the
family court for parenting time or legal decision-making.

¶7             Father admitted he learned of Mother’s drug use around
December 2021. When Mother did not want to work with Father to improve
her living situation, he called DCS and reported her drug use. Then, during
the January 2022 incident, he confronted her about the drug use but did not
hit her. He testified that A.C. was present during the January 2022 incident
and had fallen out of the stroller. After the incident, he did not check on
A.C. because the police told him to not contact Mother. He also testified that
he possessed the basic parenting skills to take care of A.C. if he was
returned to him. Finally, he testified that he would do counseling if the
juvenile court ordered it, but he did not feel like he had done anything
wrong and did not need it.

¶8           The DCS case manager testified that the primary concern was
the ongoing domestic violence, and that Father was unable to provide care
and control for A.C. The case manager also testified that Father did not
agree to participate in domestic-violence counseling. Finally, the case
manager testified that DCS wanted Father to participate in domestic-
violence counseling even if he was the victim of the January 2022 incident
and not the aggressor. The case manager acknowledged, however, that
Father was on probation because of a domestic-violence conviction and
through it was participating in domestic-violence classes.

¶9           The juvenile court found that DCS had proved that A.C. was
dependent as to Father by a preponderance of the evidence. It found that
domestic violence was a substantiated concern and unresolved threat to

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

A.C. It also found Father to be “a relatively unreliable reporter of
information.” It therefore adjudicated A.C. dependent as to Father. Father
timely appealed.

                                 DISCUSSION

¶10            Father’s opening brief lacks citations to relevant authorities,
statutes, and portions of the record. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a). Father’s
failure to comply with these rules limits our ability to evaluate his
arguments or otherwise address his claims. See, e.g., In re U.S. Currency in
Amount of $26,980.00, 199 Ariz. 291, 299 ¶ 28 (App. 2000) (refusing to
consider unsupported and undeveloped arguments). Although Father is a
non-lawyer representing himself, he is held to the same standards as a
qualified attorney. Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, 270 ¶ 12 (App. 1999).
Nevertheless, because we prefer to decide cases on the merits, and the best
interests of the child are at issue, we will attempt to discern and address the
substance of Father’s arguments. Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966).

¶11           We review an order adjudicating a child dependent for an
abuse of discretion, deferring to the juvenile court’s ability to weigh and
analyze the evidence. Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 484, 488 ¶ 12
(App. 2015). We will disturb a dependency adjudication only if no
reasonable evidence supports it. Shella H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz.
47, 50 ¶ 13 (App. 2016).

¶12            A dependent child is one “[i]n need of proper and effective
parental care and control and who has . . . no parent or guardian willing to
exercise or capable of exercising such care and control”; “not provided with
the necessities of life, including adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical
care”; or whose “home is unfit by reason of abuse, neglect, cruelty or
depravity of a parent, a guardian or any other person having custody or
care of that child.” A.R.S. § 8–201(15)(a)(i), (ii), (iii). “Neglect” is defined as
the “inability or unwillingness of a parent, guardian or custodian of a child
to provide that child with supervision, food, clothing, shelter or medical
care if that inability or unwillingness causes unreasonable risk of harm to
the child’s health or welfare.” A.R.S. § 8–201(25)(a). Whether a child is
dependent focuses on the circumstances existing at the time of the
adjudication. Shella H., 239 Ariz. at 50 ¶ 12. DCS has the burden of proving
the allegations of a dependency petition by a preponderance of the
evidence. See A.R.S. § 8–844(c)(1); Shella H., 239 Ariz. at 50 ¶ 13.

¶13         Reasonable evidence supports the juvenile court’s order. In
January 2022, Father was involved in domestic violence with Mother,

                                        4
                     IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.C.
                           Decision of the Court

during which A.C. fell to the ground. After the incident, he did not check
on A.C., claiming that he was told not to contact Mother. Also, at the time
of the hearing, Father was on probation because of a domestic-violence
conviction. Yet Father resisted DCS’s request that he participate in
domestic-violence counseling and did not think he needed counseling.
Father also knew of Mother’s drug use for about a month before DCS got
involved. Although he reportedly informed DCS of Mother’s drug use, he
did not remove or take any further action to protect A.C. from her care,
despite his concern about her drug use. Thus, because the record shows that
domestic violence was a substantiated concern and unresolved threat to
A.C. and that Father failed to appropriately care and supervise A.C.,
sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that A.C. was
dependent due to Father’s neglect. See Shella H., 239 Ariz. at 51 ¶ 16
(“[D]omestic violence need not be continuous or actively occurring at the
time of the adjudication hearing to support a finding of dependency on
these grounds; the substantiated and unresolved threat is sufficient.”).

¶14           Father argues that DCS’s reports included “false”
information. But we defer to the juvenile court’s ability to weigh and
analyze the evidence as the trier of fact. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec.,
203 Ariz. 278, 282 ¶ 12 (App. 2002). And in the exercise of this function, the
juvenile court explicitly noted that it found Father to be “a relatively
unreliable reporter of information.” Thus, Father has not shown that the
juvenile court erred in finding A.C. dependent as to him.

                                CONCLUSION

¶15           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

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

                                          5