Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
v.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
W I N T H R O P, Judge:
1 L.V. was born in November 2012; R.V. was born in September 2013.
2
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
3
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
4 A safety plan had been developed that if Father was not able to pick
up the children from daycare or if one of the children were sick and unable
to go to daycare, Mother would contact an approved friend or family
member to stay with her and the children until Father could come home.
5 Father had also been leaving the children alone with Mother, and he
subsequently tested positive for methamphetamines and opiates.
4
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
counsel for the children. DCS then moved to withdraw the dismissal,
removed the children from Father, and returned them to foster caretheir
fourth placement in the case. A few days later, Mother came to Fathers
house uninvited, attempted to break in, and the parents again engaged in
domestic violence. Father, who was allegedly intoxicated, choked Mother,
and the police were again called. In April 2016, the juvenile court vacated
its oral order dismissing the case.
5
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Review
6
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
7 Father states once in his brief that the juvenile court erred in finding
DCS made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services.
He fails to develop or support his argument, however, and his conclusory
statement comes in the midst of his argument about how he made
appreciable, good faith efforts to comply with the services offered by DCS.
Moreover, given the number of services DCS offered Father in this case
including hair follicle and urinalysis testing, substance abuse assessment
and treatment, case management services, case plan staffings, team decision
making meetings, a psychological evaluation, domestic violence
counseling, individual and couples counseling, parent aide services,
transportation, and visitationand Fathers failure to challenge the
sufficiency and appropriateness of these services during the dependency or
on appeal, Father has waived his right to argue that DCS failed to provide
appropriate reunification services. See Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dept of Econ.
Sec., 234 Ariz. 174, 177-79, 10-18, 319 P.3d 236, 239-41 (App. 2014).
7
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and
control in the near future.
8
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
27 Mother argues she was denied (1) due process and (2)
effective assistance of counsel at the severance hearing. We review de novo
constitutional claims. Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima Cty., 212 Ariz.
351, 355, 16, 132 P.3d 290, 294 (App. 2006).
10 On this record, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to
accept the consent and denying counsels motion to withdraw; however,
the court should not have invited Mother and her counsel to leave.
9
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
A. Due Process
10
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
11
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
B. Diligent Efforts
12
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
number of services aimed at eliminating the need for continued out of home
placement; however, [M]other continues to make poor decisions especially
in the area of protecting herself and by extension the children from danger
in the form of domestic violence. Reasonable evidence supports the
courts finding that DCS made a diligent effort to provide Mother
appropriate reunification services.
13
PAUL V., DANA B. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
Action No. JS500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5, 804 P.2d 730, 734 (1990) (recognizing
that best interests of the child are a necessary, but not exclusively
sufficient, condition for an order of termination).
CONCLUSION
14