Appeal
from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JD31087 The
Honorable Jo Lynn Gentry, Judge
Maricopa County Public Advocate's Office, Mesa By Suzanne
Sanchez Counsel for Appellant
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Tucson By Autumn
Spritzer Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
Chief
Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the Opinion of the Court, in
which Acting Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge
Randall M. Howe joined.
OPINION
THUMMA, CHIEF JUDGE
¶1
Aleise H. (Mother) challenges the superior court's order
terminating her parental rights to her biological children
A.W., J.H. and M.H. Mother argues the court improperly found
termination was in the children's best interests and
failed to make adequate findings. Because Mother has shown no
reversible error, the order is affirmed.
FACTS
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2
In August 2015, the Department of Child Safety (DCS) took
A.W. (born in 2006), J.H. (born in 2014) and M.H. (born in
2015) into care. At that time, Mother and the children lived
with Harry H., the father of J.H. and M.H.;[1] Mother and Harry
H. had a history of domestic violence. As to Mother, DCS'
dependency petition alleged neglect and that she was
unwilling or unable to provide proper and effective parental
care and control. The court found the children dependent as
to Mother in October 2015 and adopted a case plan of family
reunification, with a concurrent case plan of severance and
adoption for J.H. and M.H.
¶3
For a time, Mother engaged in services and was described as
making progress. As a DCS case manager reported, however, in
August 2017 Mother said she was going to Oregon "for a
family death, or something like that. And she ended up not
coming back." Ultimately, Mother returned to Arizona in
December 2017, went back to Oregon after a week or two and
then returned to Arizona in early 2018. While in Oregon,
Mother had "minimal" contact with DCS and the
children. As a result, the court changed the case plan to
severance and adoption. DCS' motion sought termination
based on abandonment, mental deficiency and 15-months'
time-in-care, also alleging that termination was in the best
interests of the children. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
(A.R.S.) § 8-533(B)(1), (3), (8)(c)
(2018).[2]
¶4
Although Mother appeared at the initial termination hearing,
she did not attend trial, which proceeded in her absence. The
court heard testimony from a DCS case manager and a DCS case
specialist and received exhibits. As relevant here, the case
manager testified that termination was in the children's
best interests, adding that termination and adoption by the
current placement, a maternal aunt, would provide the
children permanency and stability. The case specialist
testified that the younger children had been with the
placement their entire lives, the placement was meeting the
children's needs and termination would provide needed
stability. This same witness testified the children would
suffer if parental rights were not terminated: "[t]hey
would continue to be in a place where permanency was still
not set for them. . . [T]hey wouldn't know where
they're going to be for the rest of their lives."
The evidence also showed the children were adoptable even if
the current placement was unable to adopt.
¶5
In granting the motion, the court found DCS had shown by
clear and convincing evidence the three statutory grounds
alleged. The court then found DCS proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that termination was in the best interests of
the children. The court noted that "all three children
are placed together in a prospective adoptive home. This home
has demonstrated its willingness and ability to meet all of
the needs of the children. Adoption will provide each of
these children with the permanence and stability that they
otherwise lack." Noting the children had been in care
for nearly three years, the court added that "the
children will continue languishing in foster care for an
indefinite period of time" absent termination. The court
also found the children were adoptable.
¶6
In written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court
echoed these findings. As to best interests, the court found
termination
would provide the children with permanency and stability. The
children are residing in an adoptive placement which is
meeting all of their needs. The children are considered
adoptable and another adoptive placement could be located
should the current placement be unable to adopt. Continuation
of the parent-child relationship would be a detriment to the
children because it would delay permanency, leaving the
children to linger in care for an indeterminate period since
the children do not have parents who are able to care for
them.
This
court has jurisdiction over Mother's timely appeal
pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona
Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), ...