Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rizona Ourt of Ppeals
Rizona Ourt of Ppeals
Rizona Ourt of Ppeals
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
IN THE
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
G O U L D, Judge:
1
Mysti B. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile courts order
granting ADES discretion to suspend visitation with her two minor
children. Mother argues the evidence does not support the courts ruling.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2
On May 20, 2013, Mothers children were found dependent
due to neglect stemming from Mothers substance abuse issues, domestic
violence between Mother and her partner, Mothers mental health issues,
and Mothers failure to protect the children.1 At a report and review
hearing on July 23, 2013, the juvenile court granted ADES discretion to
suspend Mothers visitation. In its order, the court directed that
discretion shall be utilized if the mother misses any more UAs [urinalysis
tests]. If the discretion is exercised to suspend those visits, then those
visits shall not be restarted until it is therapeutically recommended.
3
Mother missed a UA on August 22, 2013, and the next day
ADES exercised its discretion and suspended Mothers visitation with the
children. On September 5, 2013, Mother filed a motion requesting the
court reconsider its July 23 minute entry. She argued that visitation could
only be restricted if the court found visitation was not in the childrens
best interests. In addition, Mother contended that because there was no
evidence that the visits were harmful to the children, visitation could not
be suspended.
Jurisdiction
6
ADES argues Mother should have appealed the July 23
minute entry order originally granting ADES the authority to suspend
Mothers visitation. Because Mother only appealed the juvenile courts
October 8 order denying her motion for reconsideration, ADES contends
that Mothers notice of appeal is untimely and, therefore, this court lacks
jurisdiction to review her claims regarding the July 23 order.
7
Before considering the merits of a juvenile appeal, this
Court conducts a preliminary review of the record in order to determine
whether or not it has jurisdiction. Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-79149,
25 Ariz. App. 78, 78, 541 P.2d 404, 404 (1975). Rule 104(a) requires that a
final order be in writing and signed by the judge before an appeal can be
taken. A final order is an order that disposes of an issue such that it
conclusively defines the rights and/or duties of a party in a dependency
proceeding. Yavapai Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-8545, 140 Ariz. 10, 15, 680
P.2d 146, 151 (1984). We have held that orders terminating a parents
visitation rights, or substantially limiting those rights, are final, appealable
orders. See Lindsey M. v. Ariz. Dept of Econ. Sec., 212 Ariz. 43, 45, 7, 127
P.3d 59, 61 (App. 2006). The focus is on the practical effect of the courts
Suspension of Visitation
11
Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in
suspending her visitation because there is no evidence in the record
showing that her visits were endangering the children. She claims the
juvenile court suspended the visits in an improper attempt to induce her
to comply with the case plan and submit random UAs. Mother also
:MJT