Court Opinion

ID: 9894734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 18:03:34.093372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:28.986856
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.M.

                              No. 1 CA-JV 23-0120
                               FILED 11-02-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JD534988
                The Honorable Ashley Halvorson, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Denise L. Carroll, Esq. Scottsdale
By Denise L. Carroll
Counsel for Appellant Mother

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Jennifer Blum
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
                   IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO J.M.
                         Decision of the Court

                     MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

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

¶1          Trisha M. (“Mother”) appeals from the juvenile court’s
dependency disposition. We affirm.

            FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            Mother is the biological parent of J.M. (“Child”), born in
September 2006. Between 2016 and 2021, the Department of Child Safety
received more than five reports about Mother’s physical and mental abuse
and neglect of Child. The abuse continued in August 2021, when DCS
learned that Mother had struck Child with “a phone, a belt, a hanger, and
locked [Child] in a bathroom, which [Mother] had done for multiple hours
on multiple occasions.” Mother admitted she hit Child with a belt, adding,
“I was trying to get him just to shut up.”

¶3          Mother was arrested and Child was placed with his father,
Michael M. (“Father”), who had been divorced from Mother for several
years.1 By mid-2022, DCS placed Child in congregate care because Father
was no longer willing to parent him.

¶4            DCS petitioned the juvenile court to find Child dependent as
to Mother based on her neglect, unwillingness or inability to parent, and
reports of physical abuse. DCS reached out to Mother for reunification
services, but Mother said she did “not need to do anything.” Mother did
not participate in any of the recommended parenting classes or “engage in
any services.”

¶5           The juvenile court held a contested dependency hearing in
February and March 2023, and heard testimony from the DCS case
manager, the DCS investigator, Mother’s adult daughter and Mother. The
court found Child dependent as to Mother under A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a),
concluding she posed safety threats of abuse and neglect to Child. The

1      Father entered a no contest to dependency allegations and is not a
party to this appeal.

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

court reasoned that “the historic abuse and neglect” threatened Child
because Mother had “done nothing to address these issues,” and Mother
failed to “take any responsibility for [Child] and his struggles.” The court
found that Mother was not credible, and found the abuse allegations
against Mother were “credible,” pointing to “the child’s consistent reports
of abuse in August 2021, supported by photographs of the injuries.”

¶6            Mother appeals. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. §§ 8-235, 12-
120.21(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶7             We review the juvenile court’s dependency order for an abuse
of discretion, Joelle M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 525, 527, ¶ 9 (App.
2018), 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). We will affirm
a finding of dependency unless it is supported by no reasonable evidence.
Shella H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47, 50, ¶ 13 (App. 2016).

¶8            A child’s best interests is the primary concern in a
dependency case. Joelle M., 245 Ariz. at 527, ¶ 10. Arizona law defines a
dependent child as one who lacks “proper and effective parental care and
control,” and who “has no parent or guardian” who is “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, neglect, cruelty or depravity
by a parent” will also be deemed dependent. A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(iii).

¶9            The juvenile court found Child dependent as to Mother based
on her abuse and neglect, along with her unwillingness or inability to
parent Child. Mother does not contest these findings of neglect or her
unwillingness or inability to parent Child, and either alone is sufficient to
affirm the court’s ruling.

¶10             Regardless, the record has reasonable evidence to support the
juvenile court’s decision. The court heard testimony from several witnesses
about Mother’s abuse, and Mother admitted she hit Child with a belt to get
him to “shut up.” The court assessed the evidence and Mother’s credibility
and found that Mother had abused and neglected Child. The juvenile court
is in the best position to weigh the evidence presented, Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t
of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 12 (App. 2002), and we do not reweigh its
assessment of credibility, Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz.
174, 178, ¶ 15 (App. 2014).

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

¶11            Mother argues the juvenile court “substantiated the
allegation[s] of physical abuse by Mother,” but that argument mistakes the
standard for dependency. The court needed only to weigh the evidence
presented and determine whether DCS proved the allegations by a
preponderance of the evidence. A.R.S. § 8-844(C)(1). The court did so.

                             CONCLUSION

¶12          We affirm.

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

                                       4