Maryn B. and Zanielle G. v. Hon. Padilla/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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 MARYN B. AND ZANIELLE G., Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE JOSE S. PADILLA, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Judge, THE HONORABLE LORI ASH, Commissioner of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Commissioner, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, TRESCA P., DONALD S., W.P., Real Parties in Interest. No. 1 CA-SA 19-0294 FILED 2-6-2020 Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JD22566 The Honorable Jose S. Padilla, Judge (Retired) The Honorable Lori Ash, Commissioner JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART COUNSEL Horne Slaton, PLLC, Scottsdale By Thomas C. Horne, Kristin M. Roebuck Bethell Counsel for Petitioners Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Dawn Williams Counsel for Real Party in Interest Department of Child Safety Your AZ Lawyer, Glendale By Sarah J. Michael Counsel for Real Party in Interest Tresca P. Law Offices of Kirsten Wright, PLLC, Phoenix By Kirstin J. Wright Counsel for Real Party in Interest Donald S. The Law Office of Deylynn N. Moore PLLC, Phoenix By Deylynn Nicole Moore Guardian Ad Litem for Real Party in Interest W.P. MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge David B. Gass joined. W I N T H R O P, Judge: ¶1 Maryn B. and Zanielle G. (collectively “Foster Parents”) seek special action relief from a superior court order removing a minor child (“W”) from their care. For the following reasons, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief in part, finding the superior court abused its discretion in excluding Foster Parents from a hearing and the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) failed to follow statutory procedure in the removal of W from the foster placement. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In November 2018, DCS filed a petition to find W dependent as to her biological parents, Tresca P. (“Mother”) and Donald S. (“Father”). DCS placed W in Foster Parents’ care three days after W’s birth, and W remained with Foster Parents through December 13, 2019. ¶3 In January 2019, Mother filed a motion under Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court (“Rule”) 59, requesting DCS return W to her custody. DCS opposed the motion, and the superior court denied 2 MARYN B. and ZANIELLE G. v. HON. PADILLA et al./DCS Decision of the Court Mother’s request. Mother filed a second Rule 59 motion in September 2019. The superior court held an initial evidentiary hearing on Mother’s Rule 59 motion in October and continued the hearing to December 13, 2019. ¶4 In November, Mother and Father filed a joint motion for emergency change of physical custody from Foster Parents, alleging Foster Parents were threatening to subject the dependency …Original document