Stephanie Stephens v. State of Arizona, et al.

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Stephanie Stephens failed to state a viable wrongful institution of civil proceedings claim against the State and Department of Child Safety personnel. The court concluded that the juvenile court's dependency adjudication, affirmed on appeal, established probable cause unless procured through fraud, perjury, or other corrupt means, and that Stephens's allegations did not plausibly show such conduct. The court affirmed the superior court's dismissal and vacated the court of appeals' memorandum decision.

Holdings

1. A favorable adjudication by a competent tribunal ordinarily establishes probable cause for a wrongful institution of civil proceedings claim, even if the adjudication is later reversed or vacated, unless it was procured by fraud, perjury, or other corrupt means.
2. Stephens did not plead facts plausibly showing that the juvenile-court removal or dependency decisions were procured by fraud, perjury, or other corrupt means.
3. Even disregarding the prior adjudications, Stephens's allegations did not establish that DCS lacked probable cause to initiate or maintain the removal and dependency proceedings.
4. DCS waived its issue-preclusion argument by raising it for the first time in supplemental briefing without giving Stephens an opportunity to respond.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Stephens sufficiently alleged that the Department of Child Safety initiated or maintained the dependency proceedings without probable cause to state a wrongful institution of civil proceedings claim.
2. Whether prior juvenile-court adjudications and the appellate affirmance conclusively established probable cause despite the later vacatur of the dependency finding.
3. Whether alleged omissions and misstatements concerning parental alienation, the children's prior credibility findings, the custody order, and the quashed protective order constituted fraud, perjury, or other corrupt means sufficient to negate the effect of the prior adjudications.
4. Whether Stephens's allegations independently established a lack of probable cause under the subjective-and-objective probable-cause standard.
5. Whether the Department of Child Safety's issue-preclusion argument was waived because it was raised for the first time in supplemental briefing.

Disposition

affirmed