Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sondra M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

November 21, 2013

SONDRA M., RAFAEL A., Appellants,
v.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, A.M., Appellees.

Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JD16570 The Honorable Aimee L. Anderson, Judge.

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek, P.C., Phoenix By John L. Popilek Counsel for Appellant Mother.

Maricopa County Public Advocate, Mesa By Suzanne Sanchez Counsel for Appellant Father.

Maricopa County Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Joliene D. Konkel Guardian Ad Litem.

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Cathleen E. Fuller, Tucson Counsel for Defendant/Appellee.

Presiding Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PORTLEY, Judge.

¶1 Sondra M. ("Mother") and Rafael A. ("Father") appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child, A.M. ("child"). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Child Protective Services ("CPS") removed the child from her parents a week after birth. The Arizona Department of Economic Security ("ADES") filed a dependency petition alleging that the child was in need of care because of Mother's mental deficiency and Father's mental illness and substance abuse. The juvenile court subsequently found the child dependent, and approved the concurrent case plan of family reunification and severance and adoption.[1]

¶3 ADES offered Mother services, including visitation, a parent aide, transportation, psychological evaluations, and individual and couples counseling. Father was offered the same services, and participated in a paternity test, substance abuse treatment, and urinalysis testing.

¶4 At the August 2012 report and review hearing, the parents complained that they were not getting medical training to meet their child's medical needs. The court "ORDERED that any medical training the parents need to know in order to parent the child be addressed immediately." The court also granted the child's guardian ad litem ("GAL") leave to file a motion to sever the parents' parental rights. Two weeks later, and before the parents had received meaningful training on how to feed their ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.