# Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Matthew L.

> Court of Appeals of Arizona · March 2, 2010 · 223 Ariz. 547

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783629

## Case

- **Full name:** ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, S.L., Appellants, v. MATTHEW L., Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arizona
- **Decided:** March 2, 2010
- **Citations:** 223 Ariz. 547; 577 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 13; 225 P.3d 604; 2010 Ariz. App. LEXIS 27
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Portley
- **Judges:** Barker, Portley, Johnsen
- **Cited by:** 181 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783629

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that AR.S. § 8-533(A) does not require the juvenile court “to make findings when denying a motion to terminate the parent-child relationship”
- holding that “[a]s long as the juvenile court considers the length of sentence, we find no error for it to also consider the anticipated release date.”
- noting that "no Arizona appellate court has ever opined that any specific prison term is, as a matter of law, a sufficient basis to terminate parental rights"
- noting that “ADES was under a court-ordered duty to provide [the father] with a paternity test and a psychological evaluation”

## Opinion text

PORTLEY, Judge,
specially concurring.
¶ 23 I concur that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to terminate Father’s parental rights based on the standard of review.
¶24 Arizona’s current economic and budget conditions have created hardships for A.D.E.S., Child Protective Services and its case managers. Budget cuts have reduced resources and personnel in a time when more and more children are at risk and child welfare caseloads are rising. The work is hard and demanding; just trying to meet the statutory demands and paperwork from the time a child is removed to dependency to implementing myriad case family reunification case plans to pursuing permanency is exhausting, without considering the time it takes to respond to the lawyers for the various parties and any CASA, preparing for and attending Foster Care Review Board reviews and additional periodic court hearings. Morale must be sinking as more demands are made on smaller staff, while the hard work and contribution of case managers to protecting children and reuniting families is not appropriately appreciated.
¶ 25 The economy or demands of the job, however, should not be an excuse for not communicating with any parent in prison. It is important to communicate with any parent who wants to discuss their case or children because the parent may have family or other resources to assist in the child’s permanency. Similarly, communicating with a parent may assist a ease worker to assess the parent’s desire to parent, his/her ability to parent, as well as using the opportunity to discuss the child’s pennanency.
¶ 26 Although a focus on the child’s sense of time, see J. Goldstein, A. Freud, & A. Solnit, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, (Free Press, 1973), at 40-42, and need for permanency with a caring adult could have resulted in a different ruling, no Arizona appellate court has ever opined that any specific prison term is, as a matter of law, a sufficient basis to terminate parental rights. See e.g., James H. v. Ariz. Dept. of Econ. Sec., 210 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 13 , 106 P.3d 327, 330 (App.2005) (Norris, concurring). As a result, the mere fact that a parent is in prison should not prompt any case manager to dismiss any parent’s attempt to communicate about the child, placement, case plan, or the child’s pennanency.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783629. Public record. Not legal advice.