Dareena Ojulu J. O. v. Dep't of Child Safety
| Decision Date | 12 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-JV 14-0166,1 CA-JV 14-0166 |
| Parties | DAREENA J., OJULU O., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, A.O., Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
The Honorable Linda H. Miles, Judge
AFFIRMED
The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale
By Alison Stavris
David W. Bell Attorney at Law, Mesa
By David W. Bell
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Michael F. Valenzuela
Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
¶1 Dareena J. (Mother) and Ojulu O. (Father) appeal from the trial court's orders terminating their respective parental rights to A.O. (Child). Mother's rights were terminated on the statutory grounds of chronic substance abuse, six months out-of-home care, and failure to remedy circumstances causing a prior termination; Father's rights were terminated on the statutory grounds of six months out-of-home care and failure to remedy circumstances causing a prior termination. Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 8-533(B)(3), (8)(b), (10).2 On appeal, Mother and Father each argue DCS presented insufficient evidence to support any of these statutory grounds. For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶2 Mother and Father's first child together, Sister, was born in May 2009. At that time, Mother had an open dependency case involving six prior children, who were removed as a result of Mother's drug use, mental illness and history of domestic violence; for those reasons, Sister was removed from Mother at birth. Mother failed to remedy those circumstances, and after two years of out-of-home care, her parental rights to the first six children were terminated in May 2010.
¶3 Following the initial severances, DCS continued to offer Mother services toward reunification with Sister. However, Mother stopped participating in random urinalysis testing and later admitted using marijuana to keep "from hurting someone" a few weeks prior to trial. She did not complete parent aide services and refused recommended substance abuse treatment and counseling. Mother also continued to reside with a different man with whom she had a history of domestic violence. As a result, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights to Sister in April 2011 for failure to remedy circumstances — substance abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence — that caused Sister to be in an out-of-home placement for fifteen months or longer.
¶4 Father's parental rights to Sister were also terminated in April 2011. Although Father initially complied with the case plan, the trial court ultimately determined Father was "blind to [M]other's inadequacies and the danger [M]other poses to [Sister], so that the child cannot be safely returned to [him]." This determination was based upon Father's insistence, even when presented with information to the contrary, that Mother was not, nor ever had been, a bad parent, that Mother had "only made one mistake," and that the six prior terminations resulted from problems with the children's father(s). Father initially refused counseling to help him better understand Mother's substance abuse and the danger it presented to Sister, instead permitting Mother to reside with him and continuing to believe Mother posed no danger to the child. The court was skeptical of Father's testimony at trial that he would abide by an order prohibiting contact between Sister and Mother, if an "appropriate reason" were given, noting "the obvious and correct response is that a fit and appropriate father does not need a Court order to take appropriate steps to protect his child."
¶5 Less than two years later, in December 2012, Mother and Father's second daughter, Child, who is the subject of this appeal, was born substance-exposed to marijuana. Child was removed at birth, and found dependent as to Mother and Father in February 2013.
¶6 Mother and Father were advised by DCS that, in order to reunify with Child, they would need to demonstrate an "ability to obtain and maintain a sober lifestyle, free of substances and acquaintances who use substances." They would also need to demonstrate an understanding of the child's needs, placing them before their own, and demonstrate motivation to reunify by fully participating in services. Both parents were offered parent aide services, random urinalysis testing, supervised visitation, and psychological evaluations, and were referred to TERROS forsubstance abuse assessment and treatment. Father was also asked to provide a hair follicle test to rule out substance abuse.
¶7 Mother and Father completed an intake for parent aide services in February 2013. Both parents were tasked with understanding the effects of substance abuse on a child and learning appropriate parenting skills. For the most part, Mother and Father behaved appropriately with Child during the visits they attended, but the service was closed in April 2013 because Mother continued to test positive for illegal substances. Additionally, neither parent showed a commitment to the service, with Mother missing five of fourteen visits, and Father missing nine. Mother and Father also completed an intake for the Cradles to Crayons program, but never presented for any later appointments, and the service was likewise closed in February 2013.
¶8 A visits-only parent aide service was initiated for both parents, but visits did not resume until June 2013 as a result of difficulties contacting them. In June and July, Mother attended four of seven visits, arriving late on one of those occasions, and Father attended only once. Their lack of participation resulted in the service being closed. Neither parent saw Child again until late October 2013, when she was ten months old; by that time, Child no longer recognized them.
¶9 Meanwhile, between December 2012 and August 2013, Mother was required to submit to random urinalysis testing seventeen times. She failed to provide a sample on nine occasions, and on another, admitted having attempted to dilute her sample. The eight remaining tests were positive for some combination of marijuana, methamphetamine and cocaine.
¶10 Father submitted hair follicle samples in February 2013 and August 2013, and each indicated methamphetamine exposure within the prior ninety days. Despite concentrations seven to eight times the minimum detection level,4 Father denied having used illegal drugs, and refused any substance abuse treatment on that basis.
¶11 Mother also completed an intake with TERROS for substance abuse treatment in February 2013. She was referred to an intensive outpatient program, but attended only three of fifteen meetings. She was then placed on an attendance contract, but never returned. Additionally, all six oral swabs she submitted to TERROS were positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine; two also tested positive for marijuana. Mother's prognosis was described as "poor," and these services were closed in May 2013.
¶12 In July and August 2013, after significant difficulty in scheduling and at least two missed appointments, both parents submitted to a psychological evaluation with Dr. James Thal. Mother reported she began using marijuana at age 13 and methamphetamine at 18 or 19. Mother also disclosed she was currently pregnant with her ninth child, but described herself as "unable to stop" smoking marijuana. She could not state when she last used methamphetamine, but admitted trying cocaine and "spice" during the previous year. Further, she reported recent use of alcohol, as well as smoking two to three cigarettes per day. She also identified several suicidal episodes and several prior incidents where she stabbed and/or threatened Father, a prior boyfriend, her mother and her sister with a knife.
¶13 During his psychological evaluation, Father acknowledged Mother tested positive for marijuana, but claimed he was unaware of Mother's methamphetamine or cocaine use. Despite being confronted with these facts, Father expressed his continued belief that Mother was an excellent parent. He was highly confident Mother would achieve sobriety with inpatient treatment, and stated he would raise Child on his own if she did not.
¶14 Dr. Thal concluded that, in addition to her fifteen-year history and dependence upon marijuana and methamphetamine, Mother suffered from a "significant character disorder which results in irresponsible conduct." He opined that both conditions rendered Mother incapable of parenting a child consistently and safely, and it was unlikely she would be able to discharge parental responsibilities in the foreseeable future, even with the existing or proposed interventions.
¶15 With regard to Father, Dr. Thal gave a "guarded" prognosis that Father would be able to demonstrate minimally adequate parenting skills. He noted Father's tolerance of Mother's drug use, and expressed doubt regarding Father's ability to follow through with an ultimatum, identifying "some personality traits, characteristics, and deficits whichcompel him to be overly invested in his relationship with [Mother]." Father also had a history of being unable to "break away" from Mother during the prior dependency with Sister and, likewise, did not follow through with an ultimatum to leave Mother in December 2012. Dr. Thal recommended against placing a young child with Father if he continued a relationship with Mother, and opined, if Father were serious about raising a child on his own, he needed to demonstrate his ability to do so.
¶16 Mother finally began to engage in services and make progress in August of 2013. She began testing consistently and cleanly in September 2013. On the second day of trial,5 she reported last...
To continue reading
Request your trial