Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Dependency Action No. 118537, Matter of
| Decision Date | 20 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-JV,2 |
| Citation | 185 Ariz. 77,912 P.2d 1306 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the APPEAL IN PIMA COUNTY JUVENILE DEPENDENCY ACTION NO. 118537. 94-0013. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
In this appeal, the minors, N. and D., and their parents, challenge the juvenile court's order adjudicating the children dependent as to both parents and precluding the father from living in the home. We affirm for the reasons stated below.
The Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) filed a dependency petition in August 1993 alleging that Child Protective Services (CPS) had validated allegations that the father had "severely sexually abused his niece." Before the contested dependency hearing, the parents stipulated that the father was charged with but acquitted of six counts of sexual abuse, two counts of sexual assault, one count of indecent exposure to a person fifteen or older, and one count of furnishing obscene or harmful items to minors; he was convicted of one count of indecent exposure to a person fifteen or older. A condition of the father's probation allowed him unsupervised contact with his children but not others, and required that he live outside the home because of CPS involvement. The petition further alleged that Phillip Balch, Ph.D., concluded that the father did pose a risk to the children, that the father denied abusing the niece and the mother maintained the father did not pose a risk to the children, all of which rendered the children dependent under A.R.S. § 8-201(11)(a) and (b). The children were immediately declared temporary wards of the state and the mother was granted physical custody.
Following a four-day hearing, the juvenile court found that the allegations of the petition had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence and adjudicated the children dependent. The court directed DES to offer services to the father together with the probation department, emphasizing that DES "needs to act quickly, as the Court would like to review the father's return to the home at the next hearing." We remanded this matter to the juvenile court to state the factual basis for the dependency in accordance with Ariz.R.P.Juv.Ct. 16.1(d), 17B A.R.S., which the court did as follows:
(1) At the time of the filing of the Petition herein, the minors and their parents were domiciled in Pima County, Arizona. Both parents appeared in response to the Dependency Petition and both entered denials through their respective court-appointed attorneys. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the two children, and their parents.
(2) The respondent father sexually molested his daughters' mentally retarded maternal cousin, [T.]. The Court found [T.] to be a credible witness. The Court found the father to not be credible in his denial of the molest. The father touched the private parts of [T.] against her will. By reason of this depravity the father is unable to adequately parent his own children. The mother is adamant in her position that the father did not molest her niece.... She is unwilling to even acknowledge the possibility of the act. She discouraged her daughters from reporting the allegations made by their cousin. She would take no precautions with regards to the father and as such would not be able to protect the children from the risk presented through the father.
(3) The minor children are dependent children in that they are in need of proper and effective parental care and control, and neither parent is capable of exercising such care and control. Furthermore, their home is unfit for them by reason of the depravity of their father.
The mother, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Leija
... ... fixed by verdict in the [third-party] action." 183 Ariz. 387, 392, 904 P.2d 456, 461 (1995) ... that your boat had a hole in it?" 35 "The matter of the boats condition," the jurist replied, "was ... ...
-
Andrew R. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec.
...its findings of fact were clearly erroneous and there is no reasonable evidence to support them. Pima County Juv. Dependency Action No. 118537, 185 Ariz. 77, 79, 912 P.2d 1306, 1308 (App.1994); Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JD-500325, 163 Ariz. 455, 456, 788 P.2d 1206, 1207 (App.1989). ¶ ......
-
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Leija, 1 CA-CV 16-0174.
... ... The court also ruled that "a separate action after compromise of the third-party claim is not ... We have jurisdiction of the Leijas' timely appeal pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") ... rule, and they tried to litigate the matter of employer fault, with the cooperation of [the ... ...
-
Margaret H. v. Dept. of Economic Sec.
...the dependency proceeding, in which the standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. 118537, 185 Ariz. 77, 79, 912 P.2d 1306, 1308 (App.1994). ¶ 7 After a dependency review/permanency hearing in June 2005, the juvenile court found ADES was "......