Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
v.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
N O R R I S, Judge:
2 Second, Pedro argues, for the first time on appeal, the juvenile
court did not make the findings required by the Indian Child Welfare Act
(ICWA). Although the juvenile court did not make the required ICWA
findings, we nonetheless review the juvenile courts findings for
fundamental error and find none. See Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dept of Econ. Sec.,
230 Ariz. 236, 239, 13-17, 282 P.3d 437, 440 (App. 2012) (reviewing
evidence at termination hearing for fundamental error when respondent
parent did not object in the juvenile court).
2
PEDRO R. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
DISCUSSION
Michael J. v. Ariz. Dept of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 251-52, 29, 995 P.2d 682,
687-88 (2000). No single factor compels or forbids severance. Christy C. v.
Ariz. Dept of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445, 450, 15, 153 P.3d 1074, 1079 (App.
2007).
3
PEDRO R. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
placed with Pedro pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
Children, A.R.S. 8-548 (2014), a process that could take up to six months.
10 First, the court must find that active efforts have been made
to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to
prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved
unsuccessful. Id. (quoting 25 U.S.C.A. 1912(d)). Here, the juvenile court
found only that DCS has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.
(Emphasis added). The court did not find that DCS made active efforts to
provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs to the family.
4
PEDRO R. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
11 Second, there must be a determination, supported by
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified
expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or
Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage
to the child. Valerie M., 219 Ariz. at 333, 3, 198 P.3d at 1205 (quoting 25
U.S.C.A. 1912(f)); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 66(c) (requiring the same finding).
Here, the juvenile court did not make this finding.
CONCLUSION