Satava O. v. Dcs

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

SATAVA O., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY,
C.O., J.O., A.O., G.O., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 19-0407
FILED 5-19-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300JD201900055
The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer PC, Anthem
By Florence M. Bruemmer
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa
By Lauren J. Lowe
Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety
 SATAVA O. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 Satava O. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s dependency
order relating to her four children. She argues no reasonable evidence
supports the court’s ruling. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Devon O. (“Father”) are the biological parents of
C.O. (born in 2013), J.O. (born in 2015), A.O. (born in 2017), and G.O. (born
in 2019) (collectively, “the children”). In July 2019, the Department of Child
Safety (“DCS”) filed an application for removal of the children after
receiving a report that Mother had attempted suicide. After the juvenile
court granted the application, DCS took the children into custody.

¶3 DCS then filed a dependency petition in August 2019, alleging
the children were dependent as to Mother based on neglect due to her
unmanaged mental health, as evidenced by her attempted suicide, as well
as domestic violence between Mother and Father.1

¶4 In September 2019, Mother filed a motion for return of the
children pursuant to Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 59
(‘Rule 59”). DCS amended its dependency petition, alleging Mother
neglected the children by failing to provide them with adequate medical
care. In particular, A.O. needed significant dental care, including a “baby
root canal” for many of her teeth.

¶5 The juvenile court held a three-day hearing addressing the
Rule 59 motion together with the dependency petition. After considering
the testimony and exhibits, the court denied the Rule 59 motion but
determined that DCS proved dependency of the children as to both parents
by a preponderance of evidence based on neglect “due to domestic

1 DCS also alleged the children were dependent as to Father, but he is
not a party to this appeal.

2
 SATAVA O. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court

violence, Mother’s unmanaged mental health and dental neglect.” As
pertinent here, the court explained:

Mother’s unmanaged mental health did cause her to neglect
the children. Father failed to protect the children from the
neglect caused by Mother’s mental health issues, and he left
the children in her care unsupervised. Mother is now fully
engaged in services to manage her mental health, but there is
no evidence that she can manage all of the children in home
at this point.

Mother timely appealed the dependency order.

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review a dependency order for an abuse of discretion.
Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 484, 488, ¶ 12 (App. 2015). We view
the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the court’s order, and
we will affirm unless no reasonable evidence supports the order. Willie G.
v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 231, 235, ¶ 21 (App. 2005). As the trier
of fact, the juvenile 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, 334, ¶ 4 (App. 2004).

¶7 A dependent child is one adjudicated to be “[i]n need of
proper and effective parental care and control and who has . . . no parent or
guardian willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care and control,”
or one “whose home is unfit by reason of . . . neglect . . . by a parent.” A.R.S.
§ 8-201(15)(a)(i) and (iii). Further, our statutes define neglect as “[t]he
inability or unwillingness of a parent . . . to provide that child with
supervision, food, clothing, shelter or medical care if that inability or
unwillingness causes unreasonable risk of harm to the child’s health or
welfare.” A.R.S. § 8-201(25)(a). Whether a child is dependent focuses on
the circumstances existing at the time of the adjudication. Shella H. v. Dep’t
of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47, 50, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

¶8 DCS has the burden of proving the allegations of a
dependency petition by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 8-
844(c)(1); Shella H., 239 Ariz. at 50, ¶ 13. Here, DCS alleged in part that
Mother had several mental disorders, including bipolar disorder,
borderline personality disorder, and severe postpartum depression.
Because of these issues, DCS alleged that “Mother’s unmanaged mental
health issues render her incapable of recognizing and meeting her own

3
 SATAVA O. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court

needs, as well as the needs of the children. Any child in mother’s care
would be at a substantial risk of harm.“

¶9 Mother argues no reasonable evidence supports the juvenile
court’s finding of dependency and therefore DCS did not meet its burden
of proof. However, the court received testimony supporting each of its
findings, including those related to Mother’s mental health. The children
were particularly vulnerable to Mother’s unmanaged mental health
because Mother often cared for the children alone as Father worked during
the day; Father would also sometimes spend the night away when friction
arose between himself and Mother. Father and Mother both testified
regarding Mother’s July 2019 suicide attempt, which took place when all
the children were home. Mother’s psychiatric mental health nurse
practitioner evaluated Mother’s mental health after the suicide attempt and
confirmed that Mother had a major depressive disorder. DCS caseworkers
also testified that Mother’s unmanaged mental health made her unable to
safely parent the children.

¶10 Mother argues that the allegations regarding her mental
health were no longer relevant when the court held the hearing, but rather
were “prior” issues on which the juvenile court could not base its findings.
But the court received testimony on this issue as well. After the suicide
attempt, Mother was assigned a family support services counselor, and
beginning in August 2019 Mother met with the counselor every other week.
The counselor testified that even though Mother had made significant
progress, at the time of the hearing Mother had yet to reach her goals.
Mother’s nurse practitioner also testified that Mother was responding well
to medication, but recognized that introducing four children into the house
would be an increased source of stress.

¶11 Moreover, Mother’s presentation of evidence suggesting she
was ready to safely parent the children does not mean the juvenile court
was obligated to rule in her favor. Instead, it was the court’s role to weigh
conflicting evidence and determine whether DCS had met its burden of
proof; we do not reweigh that evidence on appeal. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t
of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 12 (App. 2002). We therefore conclude
that reasonable evidence supports the court’s finding of dependency based
on Mother’s unmanaged mental health. Accordingly, we need not address
whether reasonable evidence supports the dependency order based on
neglect due to domestic violence or the lack of dental care.

¶12 Mother also challenges the juvenile court’s denial of her Rule
59 motion, but such an order is not appealable. See Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child

4
 SATAVA O. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court

Safety, 247 Ariz. 346, 348, ¶ 1 (App. 2019). Regardless, this issue is moot
because the children were returned to Mother on March 4, 2020, as part of
the ongoing dependency proceedings. See id. at 351, ¶ 17.

CONCLUSION

¶13 We affirm the superior court’s finding of dependency.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

5