Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec.

• Citation: 230 Ariz. 236,640 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 30,282 P.3d 437
• Decision Date: 31 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 1 CA–JV 12–0038.,1 CA–JV 12–0038.
• Parties: RUBEN M., Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, Latina M., Isaiah M., Reynaldo M., Estella T., Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona

230 Ariz. 236

282 P.3d 437

640 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 30

RUBEN M., Appellant,

v.ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, Latina M., Isaiah M., Reynaldo M., Estella T., Appellees.

No. 1 CA–JV 12–0038.

Court of Appeals of Arizona,

Division 1, Department A.

July 31, 2012.

Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Michael Valenzuela, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Attorneys for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security.

Christina Phillis, Maricopa County Juvenile Public Advocate By Suzanne W. Sanchez, Deputy Juvenile Public Advocate, Mesa, Attorneys for Appellant Ruben M.

OPINION

KESSLER, Judge.

¶ 1 Appellant Ruben M. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights to his four children; I.M., L.M., R.M., and E.T. He argues that the court erred in admitting evidence of his juvenile criminal record and that the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were insufficiently specific to comply with Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 66(F)(2)(a) (“Rule 66(F)(2)(a)”). We hold that: 1) the admission of testimony regarding Father's juvenile record is not reversible error because Father failed to demonstrate prejudice; 2) Rule 66(F)(2)(a) requires the findings of fact and conclusions of law to provide sufficient detail for an appellate court to determine whether the juvenile court correctly applied the law; and 3) in this case, the court's findings and conclusions were sufficiently specific to comply with Rule 66(F)(2)(a). Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 Father and Josefina T. (“Mother”) are the parents of I.M., L.M., R.M., and E.T. (“the children”). L.M. told her school counselor that her father was physically and sexually abusing her and the school notified the police. Phoenix police interviewed Mother and conducted individual forensic interviews with the children. The children reported that Father was physically, sexually, and emotionally abusive. Mother also alleged that Father was physically abusive to her and the children. Father was indicted on multiple criminal counts stemming from the allegations of abuse. The children's guardian ad litem (“GAL”) filed a petition for dependency with respect to both parents and the three eldest children. The Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”) took the children into temporary custody and placed them with their maternal grandparents. ADES was then substituted as the petitioner and filed an additional dependency petition for E.T. The juvenile court found the children dependent with respect to Father, ordering a case plan of severance and adoption as to Father.

¶ 3 In May 2011, ADES filed a motion to terminate Father's parental rights on the grounds that he abused the children, a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 8–533(B)(2) (Supp. 2011).¹ ADES also alleged that severance was in the best interest of the children.

¶ 4 At the severance hearing, Father denied ever abusing the children. Mother, however, testified that Father repeatedly physically and emotionally abused her and the children. The court also admitted into evidence letters Father wrote to Mother urging her and the children to lie under oath on his behalf.

¶ 5 A Phoenix police officer who conducted the forensic interviews with two of the children testified that she believed the children understood the allegations, had not been coached, and told the truth during their interviews. A Child Protective Services (“CPS”) investigator and a CPS case manager both testified that none of the children ever recanted their allegations and that there was no reason to doubt the veracity of the allegations of abuse. Both the CPS investigator and the case manager testified termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interest of the children.

¶ 6 The children's GAL questioned Father about statements he made to police regarding a prior delinquency adjudication for sexual conduct with a minor. Father testified that when he was a minor he was convicted of sexual contact with his 14-year-old or 15-year-old girlfriend. The GAL asked a few questions before Father's lawyer objected, stating: “[W]e're getting into character evidence again and it's not relevant to whether or not this happened....” Overruling the objection, the judge said, “I think it's highly relevant,” and allowed the GAL to continue questioning Father about his juvenile record.

¶ 7 After Father had testified, he told the juvenile court he no longer wanted to contest the termination petition and the court found he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to contest the allegations. ² Based on the evidence presented, the court ordered termination on the grounds that Father abused his children and that termination of the parent-child relationship was in the best interest of the children. The court concluded by ordering ADES to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within ten days.

¶ 8 ADES filed its proposed factual findings and legal conclusions two months past the court-ordered deadline. Three days later, Father objected to the findings, arguing in part that they merely recited the original allegations in the severance motion as conclusions of law, lacking “specific facts and details actually elicited from the three days of testimony at trial or from admitted documents.”

¶ 9 The juvenile court, apparently unaware of Father's objection, signed ADES's proposed findings. The court found that ADES proved by clear and convincing evidence that Father “willfully abused” his children, grounds for the termination of the parent-child relationship under A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(2). The court also found that ADES proved by a preponderance of the evidence that severance would be in the children's best interest, because “[t]he children would suffer a detriment if Father's rights were not terminated in that it is likely that the children would continue to be abused or harmed by Father if his rights were to remain intact.”

¶ 10 ADES filed a response to Father's objection, stating that if Father wanted more specificity, he could “submit his own proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order to the Court through his counsel.” The court entered an order declining to require ADES to file any amended findings and did not amend its findings. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8–235(A) (2007), 12–120.21(A)(1) (2003), and 12–2101(A)(1) (Supp.2011).

DISCUSSION

¶ 11 Father asks this Court to reverse the order terminating his parental rights on the grounds that the juvenile court erroneously admitted evidence of his prior juvenile adjudication and made insufficient specific findings of fact to support the termination order.

¶ 12 The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution protects parents' fundamental liberty interest in “the care, custody, and management” of their children. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). But the state also has a compelling interest in protecting child welfare. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (“the State has an urgent interest in the welfare of the child”); Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Leonardo, 200 Ariz. 74, 84, ¶ 29, 22 P.3d 513, 523 (App.2001) (“the state's interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect must be balanced against parental rights”). In balancing these interests, the court may order severance as long as it provides “fundamentally fair procedures.” Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 24, 110 P.3d 1013, 1018 (2005) (quoting Santosky, 455 U.S. at 754, 102 S.Ct. 1388).

I. Admission of Father's Juvenile Criminal History

¶ 13 Normally we review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Alvarez, 228 Ariz. 579, 580, ¶ 3, 269 P.3d 1203, 1204 (App.2012). A court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law. See Merlina v. Jejna, 208 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 6, 90 P.3d 202, 204 (App.2004). However, “an objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground” and “[w]hen a party fails to object properly, we review solely for fundamental error.” State v. Lopez, 217 Ariz. 433, 434–35, ¶ 4, 175 P.3d 682, 683–84 (App.2008).

¶ 14 Rule 609(d) of the Arizona Rules of Evidence prohibits the admission of juvenile adjudications to impeach a witness in all hearings and trials except under limited circumstances in criminal proceedings. When the children's GAL questioned Father about his prior juvenile offense, defense counsel objected only to relevance. Had the defense objected on the grounds of a Rule 609 violation, and with enough specificity to allow the juvenile court to rule on that issue, the issue would have been preserved on appeal. Father failed to object on any grounds that would suggest a violation of Rule 609. Because Father waived this issue, we must affirm the superior court's ruling absent fundamental error. See id. at 435, ¶ 4, 175 P.3d at 684.

¶ 15 Although the doctrine of fundamental error is rarely used in civil cases, it is appropriate in situations that may result in the denial of a constitutional right. Monica C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 89, 94, ¶ 23, 118 P.3d 37, 42 (App.2005) (quoting Bradshaw v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 157 Ariz. 411, 420, 758 P.2d 1313, 1322 (1988)). This Court applies the fundamental error framework here “[b]ecause of the constitutional ramifications inherent in termination proceedings.” Id.

¶ 16 Fundamental error is error that goes “to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005) (quoting State v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88, 90, 688 P.2d 980, 982 (1984)). To prevail on a claim of fundamental error, the appellant must also demonstrate prejudice. Id. at ¶ 20.

¶ 17...