Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 13-0227
02-18-2014
LORRAINE P., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, M.P., Appellees.
The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale By Alison Stavris Counsel for Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa By Amanda Adams Counsel for Appellees
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
JD510732
The Honorable Peter A. Thompson, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale
By Alison Stavris
Counsel for Appellant
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa
By Amanda Adams
Counsel for Appellees
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined. PORTLEY, Judge:
¶1 Lorraine P. ("Mother") appeals the determination that her daughter, M.P., is a dependent child. Mother contends the finding was clearly erroneous because it was not supported by reasonable evidence. Because there was sufficient evidence, we affirm the finding of dependency.
Facts and Procedural History
We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court's findings. Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 231, 235, ¶ 21, 119 P.3d 1034, 1038 (App. 2005).
¶2 M.P., Mother's biological child, was sixteen years old in February 2013, when she left home to live with her adult sister, Linda. Linda filed a dependency petition the next month, but the petition was dismissed when Mother agreed that Linda could be the child's permanent guardian at the preliminary protective hearing. Mother, however, changed her mind and Linda subsequently re-filed the dependency petition.
¶ 3 The Arizona Department of Economic Security ("ADES") filed an amended dependency petition as the co-petitioner in May 2013. The petition then alleged that "Mother [was] unable to parent due to the child's behavior." After Mother denied the allegation, there was a contested dependency hearing and the juvenile court found that ADES, now the sole petitioner, had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that M.P. was dependent as to Mother and approved a case plan of family reunification. Mother timely appeals.
M.P. was also adjudged dependent as to her father but he is not a party to this appeal.
--------
DISCUSSION
¶4 We will affirm the juvenile court's dependency order unless it is clearly erroneous. Andrew R. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 453, 456, ¶ 15, 224 P.3d 950, 953 (App. 2010). A finding is only clearly erroneous if it is not supported by reasonable evidence. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence because the "juvenile court as the trier of fact . . . is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of the witnesses, and resolve disputed facts." Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4, 100 P.3d 943, 945 (App. 2004); see Pima County Dependency Action No. 93511, 154 Ariz. 543, 545, 744 P.2d 455, 457 (App. 1987) (noting that in a dependency appeal, "[this court] cannot substitute our opinion for that of the juvenile court").
¶5 Mother argues that reasonable evidence did not support the finding that M.P.'s behavior precluded her from effectively parenting her child. We disagree.
¶6 In a dependency case, the juvenile court is vested with great discretion because its principal concern is the best interest of the child. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Superior Court of Maricopa, 178 Ariz. 236, 239, 871 P.2d 1172, 1175 (App. 1994) (citing In re Cochise County Juv. Action No. 5666-J, 133 Ariz. 157, 160-61, 650 P.2d 459, 462-63 (1982)). The court has to find by a preponderance of the evidence, Michael M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 230, 233, ¶ 10, 172 P.3d 418, 421 (App. 2007), that the child is "[i]n need of proper and effective parental care and control and . . . has no parent or guardian willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care and control." Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-201(13)(a)(i) (West 2014).
¶7 Here, M.P. left home, moved in with Linda and refused to return to Mother's care. The case manager testified that M.P. disclosed that her relationship with Mother was unhealthy because Mother was emotionally abusive and, as a result, she felt worthless, frustrated, and depressed. The case manager further testified that M.P. was diagnosed with adjustment disorder and depressed mood. After considering all the testimony and reviewing the exhibits, including M.P.'s emotional health and her best interests, the juvenile court found M.P. to be dependent. See Santa Cruz County Juv. Dependency Action Nos. JD-89-006 & JD-89-007, 167 Ariz. 98, 102, 804 P.2d 827, 831 (noting that dependency may be shown by the breakdown of the familial relationship); see also Maricopa County Juv. Action. No. JD-561, 131 Ariz. 25, 28, 638 P.2d 692, 695 (1981) (stating that a child has a right to emotional security).
¶8 Mother argues that M.P. cannot be found dependent because she is "ready, willing, and able to provide for and take care of her child." Even though she may have wanted to provide for and take care of her child, Mother's behavior demonstrated that she was unable to effectively parent her child because she has alienated and emotionally harmed M.P. Moreover, Mother's willingness to parent her child is not an absolute defense because dependency concerns the status of the child regardless of any fault on the part of the parent. Maricopa County Juv. Action No. J-75482, 111 Ariz. 588, 590, 536 P.2d 197, 199 (1975) ("This state recognizes that children are not property of their parents whose control may only be interrupted by a finding of fault."); JD-89-006 & JD-89-007, 167 Ariz. at 102, 804 P.2d at 831 (App. 1990) (finding dependency of the children where there was no finding of fault with the parents). Accordingly, because there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of dependency, we find no abuse of discretion.
CONCLUSION
¶9 Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the dependency determination.