Tristen M. v. Department of Child Safety, 110419 AZAPP2, 2 CA-JV 2019-0083

Docket Nº:2 CA-JV 2019-0083
Opinion Judge:ESPINOSA, JUDGE:
Party Name:Tristen M., Appellant, v. Department of Child Safety, L.M., and S.M., Appellees.
Attorney:Sarah Michèle Martin, Tucson Counsel for Appellant Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General By Cathleen E. Fuller, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety Pima County Office of Children's Counsel, Tucson By Sybil Clarke Counsel for Appellee Minors
Judge Panel:Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
Case Date:November 04, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

Tristen M., Appellant,

v.

Department of Child Safety, L.M., and S.M., Appellees.

No. 2 CA-JV 2019-0083

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

November 4, 2019

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. JD20150441 The Honorable Laurie B. San Angelo, Judge Pro Tempore

Sarah Michèle Martin, Tucson Counsel for Appellant

Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General By Cathleen E. Fuller, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

Pima County Office of Children's Counsel, Tucson By Sybil Clarke Counsel for Appellee Minors

Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ESPINOSA, JUDGE:

¶1 Tristen M. appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her children, L.M. (born May 2014) and S.M. (born November 2016), on the grounds of neglect under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) and repeated out-of-home placement under § 8-533(B)(11). She argues insufficient evidence supports the grounds for termination and the court's finding that termination was in the children's best interests. We affirm.

¶2 To sever a parent's rights, the juvenile court must find clear and convincing evidence establishing at least one statutory ground for termination and a preponderance of the evidence that terminating the parent's rights is in the child's best interests. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, ¶¶ 32, 41 (2005); see also A.R.S. § 8-863(B). We do not reweigh the evidence on appeal; rather, we defer to the juvenile court with respect to its factual findings because it "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). We will affirm the order if the findings upon which it is based are supported by reasonable evidence. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). We view that evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the ruling. See Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445, ¶ 12 (App. 2007).

¶3 In June 2015, the Department of Child Safety (DCS) removed L.M. from Tristen's care. L.M. was adjudicated dependent in August 2015, based on Tristen's inability to properly care for her due to mental health issues and substance...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP