A.K. v. Kay K., 052820 AZAPP2, 2 CA-JV 2019-0171
|Docket Nº:||2 CA-JV 2019-0171|
|Opinion Judge:||EPPICH, PRESIDING JUDGE|
|Party Name:||A.K., Appellant, v. Kay K. and Department of Child Safety, Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Pima County Office of Children's Counsel, Tucson By Christopher Lloyd Counsel for Appellant Sarah Michèle Martin, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Kay K. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General By Cathleen E. Fuller, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety|
|Judge Panel:||Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.|
|Case Date:||May 28, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. S20180065 The Honorable Lisa Bibbens, Judge Pro Tempore
Pima County Office of Children's Counsel, Tucson By Christopher Lloyd Counsel for Appellant
Sarah Michèle Martin, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Kay K. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General By Cathleen E. Fuller, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
EPPICH, PRESIDING JUDGE
¶1 Appellant A.K., born April 2017, challenges the juvenile court's order of November 26, 2019, denying the Department of Child Safety's (DCS) petition for termination of his mother's parental rights. On appeal, A.K. argues the court erred "in ignoring the minor[']s best interest" and by "deferring] its best interest findings to another court." Finding no error, we affirm.
¶2 To sever a parent's rights, the juvenile court must find there is clear and convincing evidence at least one of the statutory grounds for termination exists, and that a preponderance of the evidence establishes severing the parent's rights is in the child's best interest. Kent K v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, ¶¶ 32, 41 (2005). We do not reweigh the evidence on appeal; rather, we defer to the court's factual findings because, as the trier of fact, that court "is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts." Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, ¶ 4 (App. 2004). Consequently, we will affirm the order if reasonable evidence supports the factual findings upon which the order is based. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec, 203 Ariz. 278, ¶ 4 (App. 2002).
¶3 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court's order. See Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec, 214 Ariz. 445, ¶ 12 (App. 2007). In 2017, Kay, who suffered from mental illness including paranoia and delusions, stabbed A.K. with a knife and injured herself with a drill. DCS filed a petition to terminate her parental rights in March 2018, and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP