Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
W I N T H R O P, Judge:
1 Mother did not contest the termination of her parental rights and is
not a party to this appeal.
2
PETER G. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
2 Along with its request for a change in case plan, DCS submitted a
report to the juvenile court indicating, among other things, that Fathers
strong antigovernment and antisocial beliefs were a contributing factor in
the reported abuse of his children over the years and that [s]hould
[Fathers] children be returned to his care, there is serious concern he would
return to his antigovernment ideals and again keep the children isolated
from society. Further, the report noted that [n]either child has expressed
a desire to return to their parents[] care.
4 Father had concerns about his children being placed with their
paternal grandfather.
3
PETER G. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
trial and address the court regarding his position on placement. The court
reiterated that it would not address placement at this hearing.
4
PETER G. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
12 After Father was excused, the court heard testimony from the
DCS case manager and indicated it would take the matter under
advisement. The court subsequently issued an order severing Fathers
parental rights to the children, finding that Father knowingly, intelligently
and voluntarily entered a plea of no contest to the termination of his
parental rights. The court further found that DCS had established the
statutory grounds for severance of Fathers parental rights and that
severance was in the childrens best interests.
5
PETER G. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
ANALYSIS5
6 Father does not contest the juvenile courts findings regarding the
statutory grounds for severance or the courts best interests findings.
Accordingly, he has waived any challenge on appeal to those findings. See
Childress Buick Co. v. OConnell, 198 Ariz. 454, 459, 29, 11 P.3d 413, 418
(App. 2000) ([I]ssues not clearly raised in appellate briefs are deemed
waived.).
6
PETER G. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
295, 298-99, 15, 339 P.3d 1040, 1043-44 (App. 2014)). In the criminal
context, a defendants waiver of a constitutional right is valid where it is
done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely
consequences. Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). A plea will be found
involuntary only where a defendant lacks information of true importance
in the decision-making process. State v. Pac, 165 Ariz. 294, 295-96, 798 P.2d
1303, 1304-05 (1990) (quoting State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477, 481, 747 P.2d
1176, 1180 (1987)).
7
PETER G. v. DCS, et al.
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION