Terminating a parent’s relationship with their child is a grueling decision for the courts. In fact, before arriving at such a life-altering decision much needs to transpire to affirm the ruling. Take into consideration an Arizona Court of Appeals case regarding the termination of parental rights as to L.Z.
L.Z.’s parents are Brianna Z. (mother) and Shawn F. (father). In July 2020 police responded to Brianna’s home after reports of Brianna naked in the street. The authorities arrived to encounter Brianna in an accelerated state that eventually resulted in her being tased by officers and transported to the hospital. When the officers returned to Brianna’s home they discovered L.Z. naked, bruised, and crying in a closet. The Department of Child Safety (DCS) placed L.Z. in temporary custody of her great aunt and uncle.
A subsequent dependency petition was filed by DCS and ordered L.Z. to remain out of the care of her mother. However, a plan for reunification was approved. Three months later Brianna moved to have L.Z. returned to her physical custody and four months after that L.Z. was returned back to live with her mother full-time.
Roughly one year passed and the police received a call surrounding a dead body in Brianna’s home. Upon arriving the officers discovered the dead body of a man in the master bedroom. Brianna had called the police and indicated the man was her cousin. She continued, admitting to having been in a drunken state and not fully remembering what had transpired. Witnesses saw L.Z. running in the street yelling, “mommy killed him.”
DCS took custody once again of L.Z. and returned her to the great aunt and uncle. Brianna was ultimately found not guilty of the murder of her cousin and contested the DCS petitions to terminate her parental rights. Soon thereafter Brianna was arrested for driving under the influence and the following month filed another motion requesting visitation with L.Z. Brianna did not appear at the pretrial conference but did move to continue the dependency adjudication and appointed someone to represent her due to her physical status at a behavioral health hospital.
The court ultimately terminated Brianna’s parental rights. DCS had proven that L.Z. “would be harmed by continuation of the parental relationship between [Mother] and [Child].” The finding was based “on the evidence establishing that [Child] has gone through two traumatic dependencies involving [Mother], including the present dependency in which [Mother] killed a person in the home with [Child] and had [Child] remain in the home with the deceased person for hours.”
The severity of this case is heartwrenching. While parents have a right to the custody of their children, it is not absolute. A court’s principal concern with minors is their stability and security. The facts of the case coupled with DCS’s testimony of the post-traumatic effects L.Z. suffered were enough to suspend Brianna’s parental rights.
