Some of the most disturbing cases are termination of parental rights cases. The power of our government to take a child away from a parent should disturb anyone. However, what some parents do to their children is even worse. The juvenile court must walk a fine line between protecting children and not violating parents’ rights. Cases in juvenile court can be the most disturbing, but it is also where a lawyer can do the most to protect a child. To illustrate the legal standards in terminating a parent’s rights, I summarized below a published Arizona appellate court decision from about four years ago.
The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights regarding his two daughters because he was unable to discharge his parental responsibilities because of his chronic drug abuse causing him to be unable to discharge his parental responsibilities. Other grounds that a Court may use are abandonment, serious abuse or neglect (including knowingly failing to protect the child), that the parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of mental illness, incarceration for a felony that proves the parent’s unfitness, failure to file a paternity action, failure to file a notice of claim of paternity, that the parents have relinquished their rights and placed the child for adoption, that the child has been in out-of-home placement for a certain number of months, that the identity of the parent is unknown after three months of diligent efforts to identify the parent, and that the child has been in and out of placement after diligent efforts at reunification. The court also made the requisite finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. The state had previously removed the girls from their mother’s care and placed them with Father because Mother failed to report that her husband had sexually abused them, and permitted them to continue residing with her husband. Father accepted services from the state for his substance abuse, participated in treatment on and off, and, although he had several periods where he tested negative for drugs he consistently failed to remain off of drugs. He also permitted his alcoholic stepfather to care for the children. Also, under his care the children were in a head-on collision that resulted in very serious injuries to one of them. Father also injured one of the girls when he physically abused her.
The issue on appeal was whether the trial court had sufficient evidence to find that Father was unable to meet his parental responsibilities due to his chronic drug abuse. To terminate a parent’s parental rights for chronic drug abuse, a court must find the following factors by clear and convincing evidence (a high standard): 1) a history of chronic abuse of alcohol or controlled substances; 2) that the parent is unable to meet parental responsibilities because of the chronic abuse; and 3) that the chronic abuse will continue for a long and indeterminate period. If the court makes these findings, the court must then find by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not - a lower standard than clear and convincing evidence) that termination is in the child’s best interest. Father pointed to periods during which he did not use alcohol or drugs. The appellate court examined the meaning of "chronic" and held that "chronic" does not necessarily mean "constant." The appellate court father’s long history of substance abuse and an evaluation that determined that he had a marijuana addiction and should be evaluated for alcohol abuse and narcotic/opiate medication abuse was sufficient evidence for the trial court’s determination of Father’s history of chronic abuse of alcohol and drugs. The appellate court also held that the trial court had sufficient evidence to find that the abuse led to Father’s inability to parent, specifically his inability to make appropriate decisions for his children, and his failed to protect them from abuse.
Father next argued that there was no evidence that his substance abuse would continue for a long and indeterminate period. The appellate court, however, said that the fact that Father had consistently failed to abstain from drugs and alcohol despite knowing the loss of his children was imminent is evidence that he has not overcome his dependence on drugs and alcohol.
Finally, the appellate court considered whether sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that severance was in the children’s best interest. The factors to consider in the trial court are: 1) whether an adoptive placement is immediately available; 2) whether the existing placement is meeting the children’s needs; and 3) whether the children are adoptable. In this case
there was evidence that the children were thriving in their placement and that the foster parents, as well as relatives of both Father and Mother were willing to adopt the children. The appellate court concluded that the trial court had sufficient evidence to rule that termination was in the children’s best interest.