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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STEPHANIE S.
, Appellant
,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, M.K., C.K.
, Appellee s

.

No. 1 CA

- JV 20

- 0227

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. J D39289 The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Stavris Law Firm PLLC
, Scottsdale By Chris to pher Stavris Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office
, Mesa By Eric Devany C ounsel for Appellee

, Department of Child Safety

FILED 4-22-2021STEPHANIE S. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

C A M P B E L L
, Judge:

¶1 Stephanie S. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order adjudicating her two child ren dependent. For the following reasons, we affirm

.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Demetrius K. (“Father”) were married in 2007 and are the parents of Mary and Cathy. 1 The y divorced in 2017 , and Mother began a relationship with Joel H. (“Boyfriend”). Between 2016 and 2020 , the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) received several reports that Father, Mother, and Boyfriend were abusing and neglecting the children

. DCS was unable to substantiate the claims

. I n one report , C athy , then ten ye ars old, was found alone near a busy highway

. S he told authorities she was tired of being hurt by Mother and Boyfriend and would “rather ‘die’ th[an] be in the home with them.”

¶3 In early 2019, a court

- appointed advisor interviewed the parents, the childr en, and Boyfriend. Father reported that Boyfriend was restricting his communication with Mother
, rendering co

- parent ing impossible

. He also told the advisor Mother had pulled a gun on him after they separated. Mother reported that while she and Father were together, they engaged in acts of domestic violence

. Both Mary and C athy told the advisor they did not feel safe in Mother’s home

. C athy stated she “would rather be in heaven than” in Mother’s home.

¶4 Later that year
, t he children reported to a DCS caseworker that Boyfriend drinks heavily
, scream s and get s violent. The children confirmed that Boyfriend had been physically abusive with them both. The girls maintained they were afraid of Boyfriend and did not feel safe in Mother’s home. They explained that Mother would not protect them or

1 P seudonym s are used for the children to protect their identit ies

.STEPHANIE S. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

3 believe them, but rather called them liars when they told her what Boyfriend was doing t o them. Indeed, C athy said that if she were forced to live in the same house as Boyfriend, she would commit suicide.

¶5 Based on the children’s disclosures, DCS offered Mother two rounds of family preservation services aimed at helping her improve her ability to communicate
, co

- parent, and understand her protective role as a mother

. She completed th e service on her second referral, but DCS had lingering concerns that sh e lacked the insight necessary to keep the children safe

. ¶6 This was confirmed in September 2019, when C athy told Mother that Boyfriend had engaged in grooming behavior s and touched her inappropriately

. In response
, Mother called C athy a liar. T he case manager then concluded that Mother was unable to protec t the children from Boyfriend because she did not recognize his controlling behaviors and did not understand the emotional abuse he was inflicting on the family

. The case manager noted that Mother would communicate only through Boyfriend and would always consult Boyfriend before answering a question. Yet Mother continued to describe Boyfriend as supportive, loving, caring, and affectionate and did not understand her daughters ’ fear of him. The case manager concluded that Mother’ s failure to recognize Boyfriend’s abuse and control affected her ability to properly parent the children. Father then secured custody of the children through family court

. ¶7 By March 2020, Father was homeless and living with the children in a van. Althou gh Mother knew the location of the children , she waited a month to file for sole custody. Father then concealed the children’s whereabouts and eventually absconded with them. The following month DCS located and took custody of the children and filed a depe ndency petition.

¶8 In July 2020 , the juvenile court adjudicat ed the children dependent

. 2 Mother timely appealed.

2 The hearing took place over two days, before two judicial officers. Upon discovering a conflict of interest, the first judge recused himself

. DCS argues this court can and should affirm the dependency ruling based solely on evidence received during the se cond day of the hearing. Therefore, this Court has considered only the record from the second day.STEPHANIE S. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

4 DISCUSSION

¶9 We review the juvenile court’s dependency determination for an abuse of discretion and will affirm unless no reasonable evidence supports the court’s findings. Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety , 237 Ariz. 484, 488, ¶ 12 (App. 2015)

. The juvenile court “is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts.” Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O. , 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4 (App. 2004). The juvenile court must find a child dependent by a preponderance of the evidence. Louis C. , 237 Ariz. at 490, ¶ 23.

¶10 A dependent child is one who is adjudicated to be “in need of proper and effective parental care and control and

. . . has no parent

. . . willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care and control ” or “ [a] child whose home is unfit by reason of

. . . neglect

. . . by a parent

. . . having custody or care of the child .” A.R.S. 8

- 201(15)(a)(i) , (iii)

. Neglect means the “inability or unwillingness of a parent

. . . to provide [her children] with supervisio n

. . . if that inability or unwillingness causes unreasonable risk of harm to the [children’s] health or welfare.” A.R.S. § 8

- 201(25)(a). “[ T ] he juvenile court must consider the circumstances as they exist at the time of the dependency adjudication hearing in determining whether a child is a dependent child.” Shella H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety , 239 Ariz. 47, 48 , ¶ 1 (App. 2016).

¶11 Mother argues that no reason able evidence supports the juvenile court’s order adjudicating the children dependent. We disagree.

¶12 The evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Mother neglected the children and was unable or unwilling to provide them proper and effective pare ntal care and control

. Mother admitted to engaging in domestic violence with Father. A lthough s he denied any physical domestic violence with Boyfriend
, ample evidence demonstrated that Boyfriend exerted power and control over her, which is part of the dome stic

- violence cycle

. Evidence also supported the court ’s determin ation that Boyfriend’s power and control hamper ed Mother’s ability to safely parent the children.

¶13 DCS case managers and the parents’ court

- appointed advocate all recognized Boyfriend’s con trolling behaviors and the impact they had on Mother’s ability to parent and protect the children

. Mother’s first case manager explained that she could only contact Mother through Boyfriend. The family court ordered Mother to get her own cell phone, but the case manager still had to make contact through Boyfriend

. Mother alsoSTEPHANIE S. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

5 defer red to Boyfriend before responding to the case manager’s questions. Mother’s second case manager observed similar behaviors. Likewise , the
court

- appointed a dvocate reported she was “unable to determine if Mother is able to make decisions independently for herself and the children
, ” explaining that “it was difficult to decipher Mother[’s] thoughts and feelings” as “[e]very time [the advocate] spoke with Mother on the phone [Boyfriend] was on the phone as well and often spoke for her.”

¶14 Both girls a greed that Boyfriend control s Mother and further asserted that he is physically violent with them

. They were afraid of Boyfriend and described a time when he chased C athy out of the home, pushed her down, and set his foot on her back. According to the children, Mother was present on that occasion and encouraged Boyfriend ’s behavior. Additionally, M ary recounted a time that Boyfriend locked her in her room and though she yelled for Mother to help, Mother did nothing. Finally, C athy claimed that Boyfriend touched her inappropriately. Based on this evidence, the court correctly determined that Mother was unable or unwilling to recognize this cycle of power and con trol and the unreasonable risk of harm it posed to the children in her care.

¶15 Mother testified that the children never told her anything negative about Boyfriend
, and the case manager testified that Mother believed the ir statements to DCS were the resu lt of brainwashing by Father. In contrast
, both girls said they raised these issues with Mother, but she called them “liars

. ” The case manager testified that even if Mother did not believe the children, she needed to be protective, supportive, and aligned with them so she could decipher why there were afraid of Boyfriend. As the second case manager testified, Mother’s denial of the events prevents her from “step[ping] in and protect[ing] her children from” Boyfriend.

¶16 On appeal, Mother continues to argue that Father “brainwashed” and “manipulat[ed]” the children against Boyfriend

. However, the juvenile court considered Mother’s testimony, and this court will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.
, 203 Ariz. 278, 282
, ¶ 12 (App. 2002) . Mother also argues that , on her own initiative, she secured counseling for the childre n. Although Mother took a positive step by finding counseling for the girls
, the evidence showed that she still does not fully understand or accept her responsibility to protect her daughters from abuse

. R easonable evidence supports the juvenile court’s

or der adjudicating the children dependent as to Mother.STEPHANIE S. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

6 CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm

.