Juvenile Action No. J-64016, Matter of, J-64016
| Decision Date | 24 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,J-64016,2 |
| Citation | 127 Ariz. 296,619 P.2d 1073 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Appeal in Pima County, JUVENILE ACTION NO.3716. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
A juvenile court order declaring a minor child to be dependent and awarding his care, custody and control to the Department of Economic Security (DES) with physical custody in certain foster parents is appealed by the child's mother. Briefs have been filed by the appellant/mother, DES, the attorney for the child, and the foster parents. Several issues have been presented by appellant as grounds for reversal. We need address but one which is dispositive and requires reversal.
On August 8, 1979, DES filed a petition in juvenile court alleging the minor child was dependent in that he was in need of effective parental care and control which his mother was unable to provide because of extreme emotional problems affecting her ability to provide care and supervision for the child. DES requested the court to grant temporary custody to it pending a hearing on the matter. The notice served on the mother advised her that a dependency petition had been filed, that a hearing on the petition and on temporary custody was set for September 5, 1979, that the court had ordered the child committed to the care, custody and control of DES pending the hearing, that she might appear at the hearing and be represented by counsel and that counsel would be appointed upon a showing of lack of financial ability to retain her own counsel.
A temporary custody order was signed by the juvenile court judge on August 13, 1979, declaring the minor to be a temporary ward of the court and awarding his temporary care, custody and control to DES. An emergency placement hearing was conducted the following day and the court approved placement of the minor with the foster parents.
Appellant appeared at the September 5 hearing and at the outset requested appointment of counsel. The court found her indigent and thus eligible for a court-appointed attorney. Considering the allegations of the dependency petition as denied by the mother, the court then proceeded to hear testimony from a DES caseworker, a social worker, and the foster father. Letters written by the latter two witnesses were read by the court and admitted into evidence. The DES caseworker recommended continuation of the foster home placement pending a contested hearing to be scheduled. At the conclusion of his testimony, the court asked appellant whether she had any questions she wanted to ask. Appellant, speaking through an interpreter, responded:
"I would like to continue to see my child more frequently, because I've been only able to see him once this month."
This was appellant's sole participation in the September 5 hearing. The court found the minor to be "temporarily a dependent minor child" and ordered his temporary care, custody and control awarded to DES with actual physical placement in the home of the foster parents. The court further ordered that an attorney be appointed to represent appellant and that a review hearing be held January 16, 1980. On September 18, 1979, counsel was appointed for appellant.
From January 16, 1980, until the final hearing on May 27, 1980, numerous hearings relative to the dependency issue and visitation were held. The foster parents continuously opposed unsupervised visitation with appellant and it was not until April 3 that the court ordered unsupervised visitation at the mother's home for a 24-hour period on alternate weekends.
After the May 27 hearing, the court made extensive findings of fact and concluded that appellant was unable to provide proper and effective parental control. The child was adjudicated dependent. Visitation on alternate weekends, as previously provided, was ordered to continue and a review hearing was set for November 5, 1980, unless an earlier review was required by any of the parties. 1
Appellant contends that she was denied due process of law when the court proceeded with the September 5 hearing while she was unrepresented by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberto F. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec.
...of “[p]articipants” in dependency proceedings, but not under the definition of “[p]arties”) 5; Juv. Action No. J–64016, 127 Ariz. 296, 298 n. 2, 619 P.2d 1073, 1075 n. 2 (App.1980) (refusing to consider an amicus brief filed by foster parents; “[a]lthough [foster parents] were permitted to ......
-
DANIEL Y. v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC.
...is void. Ariz. State Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Barlow, 80 Ariz. 249, 253, 296 P.2d 298, 300 (1956); Pima County Juv. Action No. J-64016, 127 Ariz. 296, 298, 619 P.2d 1073, 1075 (App.1980) (reversible error for court to proceed with dependency hearing after determining mother was entitled to ......
-
Christy A. v. Ariz. Dept. of Economic Sec.
...to A.R.S. § 8-221(B) (2007) and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. See Pima County Juv. Action No. J-64016, 127 Ariz. 296, 298, 619 P.2d 1073, 1075 (App.1980). Therefore, "the failure to allow counsel to effectively participate in severance proceedings is reversible e......
-
Meredith B. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec.
...See Denise H. v. Ariz. Dep't Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 257, 259, ¶ 6, 972 P.2d 241, 243 (App. 1998); Pima Juv. Action No. J-64016, 127 Ariz. 296, 298, 619 P.2d 1073, 1075 (App. 1980). Even in criminal cases, "[a] defendant is not, however, entitled to counsel of choice, or to a meaningful relat......