NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE 

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

AMBER W., Appellant, 

v.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, B.W., Appellees. 

No. 1 CA-JV 13-0291 

 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. JD21534 

The Honorable Bradley H. Astrowsky, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

John L. Popilek, PC, Scottsdale 

By John L. Popilek 

Counsel for Appellant 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Michael Valenzuela 

Counsel for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security
AMBER W. v. ADES, B.W. 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined. 

O R O Z C O, Judge: 

¶1 Amber W. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

terminating her parental rights to her daughter, B.W. (Child). For the 

following reasons we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 Mother gave birth to Child in February 2012. While at the 

hospital, Mother told nurses she took methamphetamines during her 

pregnancy. Mother and Child both tested negative for 

methamphetamines. Mother also admitted to having been diagnosed 

with schizoaffective and bipolar disorders, and that she was not taking 

her medication. Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) also 

learned Mother’s three-year-old son had been placed into care after she 

left him in the sun while she panhandled. Consequently, ADES took 

Child into temporary physical custody. 

¶3 ADES filed a dependency petition alleging Mother was 

unable to care for Child because of her untreated mental illness, substance 

abuse, history of child neglect, and lack of income. Mother contested the 

petition and requested a hearing. Before the dependency hearing, the 

juvenile court ordered Mother to participate in parent aide services, 

substance abuse treatment, urinalysis testing, and continued mental 

health monitoring through People of Color Network. The juvenile court 

also ordered ADES to provide Mother with a full-scale psychological 

evaluation. 

¶4 Pursuant to the juvenile court’s order, Mother underwent 

the psychological evaluation. The psychologist who conducted the 

evaluation diagnosed Mother with: amphetamine abuse, in partial 

remission; poly-substance abuse, in partial remission; a reading disorder; 

receptive language disorder; schizoaffective disorder by reported history; 

post-traumatic stress disorder; and bipolar disorder by reported history. 

The psychologist opined Mother was not a “parenting candidate” at that 
AMBER W. v. ADES, B.W. 

Decision of the Court 

3 

time and, given the totality of her difficulties, there was a poor prognosis 

that Mother would be able to parent in the foreseeable future. 

¶5 That same month, ADES referred Mother for parent aide 

services, urinalysis testing, counseling, and substance abuse treatment. 

Mother participated in parent aide services. However, Mother did not 

complete her TERROS intake for substance abuse treatment and missed 

several urinalysis tests. Based upon this evidence of non-compliance, the 

juvenile court found Child dependent. The case plan was set as family 

reunification concurrent with severance and adoption. 

¶6 After the dependency hearing, Mother finally completed 

the intake at TERROS. Upon completion of the intake, TERROS referred 

Mother to its Metro Ladder Program (Ladders).1 Mother only attended 

one appointment with Ladders despite being offered transportation by 

ADES. As a result, the referral was closed. Mother missed several 

counseling sessions, which caused her counseling referral to be closed, as 

well. Mother did, however, successfully complete her parent aide 

services. 

¶7 Mother also participated in a psychiatric evaluation. The 

psychiatrist diagnosed Mother with schizoaffective disorder, history of 

poly-substance abuse, history of developmental learning disorders, 

obsessive-compulsive disorder, and traits of post-traumatic stress 

disorder. The psychiatrist noted Mother had a “number of psychiatric 

hurdles to overcome,” and opined that even with therapy, substance 

abuse treatment and medication, Mother would be able to demonstrate 

only minimally-adequate parenting skills. He also reported that a child in 

Mother’s care would likely be at risk for neglect, and that reasonable 

grounds existed to believe Mother’s challenges would continue for a 

prolonged, indeterminate period of time. 

¶8 At a report and review hearing, ADES moved to change the 

case plan to severance and adoption. The juvenile court granted the 

request, and ADES subsequently moved to sever Mother’s parental rights 

pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 8-533.B.3 and 8-

533.B.8(b). 

 

1 Ladders is a program that focuses on both substance abuse and 

mental health issues. 
AMBER W. v. ADES, B.W. 

Decision of the Court 

4 

¶9 At the severance hearing, it was reported that Mother had 

stopped participating in mandatory urinalysis testing. Mother also failed 

to follow through on the second referral for substance abuse treatment 

made in February 2013, despite several attempts by ADES to engage her in 

services. Moreover, Mother was not fully engaged in her case plan 

recommendations from People of Color. 

¶10 At the hearing, Mother admitted to not currently taking her 

prescribed psychiatric medication because she was pregnant and because 

medication does not “work” for her. Mother also testified she would 

“probably” begin taking medication again after her pregnancy. Mother 

also admitted a long history of mental health issues dating back to 

childhood. 

¶11 An ADES case manager testified that despite diligent efforts 

made by ADES to provide Mother with appropriate reunification services, 

Mother failed to fully engage or otherwise participate in those services 

and, as a result, had not remedied the circumstances that caused Child to 

be in an out-of-home placement. The case manager also opined severance 

was in Child’s best interests because Child was thriving in her current 

family placement, her current placement was the least restrictive, and was 

meeting her needs. The case manager also reported Child’s current 

placement wanted to adopt Child and adoption would provide Child with 

stability and permanency. 

¶12 The juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights to 

Child. Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. 

sections 8-235, 12-120.21.A.1, and -2101.A.1. 

DISCUSSION 

¶13 A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the “care, 

custody, and management” of her children. See Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action 

No. JS-6520, 157 Ariz. 238, 241, 756 P.2d 335, 338 (App. 1988). This right, 

however, is not absolute. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 

246, 248, ¶ 12, 995 P.2d 682, 684 (2000). Pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533, the 

juvenile court may terminate the parent-child relationship if it finds that 

any one of the statutory grounds exists and that termination is in the 

child’s best interests. See Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 12, 995 P.2d at 685. 

We do not reweigh the evidence and accept the juvenile court’s findings 

unless no reasonable evidence exists to support them. Ariz. Dept. of Econ. 

Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4, 336 ¶ 14, 100 P.3d 943, 945, 947 

(App. 2004). 
AMBER W. v. ADES, B.W. 

Decision of the Court 

5 

¶14 Termination of a parent’s rights to a child younger than 

three years of age pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533.B.8(b) requires the juvenile 

court find the child has been placed out of the parent’s home pursuant to a 

court order for a total of six months or longer and the parent has 

“substantially neglected or willfully refused” to remedy the circumstances 

which caused the child to be in the out-of-home placement. This includes 

a parent’s refusal to “participate in reunification services offered by” 

ADES. See A.R.S. § 8-533.B.8(b). 

¶15 Mother concedes Child is under three years of age and has 

been in an out-of-home placement for more than six months. Mother’s 

contention on appeal is that ADES failed to prove that Mother 

“substantially neglected or willfully refused[] to remedy the 

circumstances that caused [Child’s] out-of-home placement.” 

¶16 Severance under A.R.S. § 8-533.B.8(b) is not reserved for only 

those parents who completely neglect remedial services. Maricopa Cnty. 

Juvenile Action No. JS-501568, 177Ariz. 571, 576, 869 P.2d 1224, 1227 (App. 

1994). Parents who only make “sporadic, aborted attempts to remedy” the 

circumstances may also face severance of their parental relationship. Id. at 

576-77, 869 P.2d at 1229-30. 

¶17 While Mother successfully completed parent aide services, 

her overall participation in reunification services was sporadic, at best. 

The record demonstrates Mother made minimal efforts to participate in 

substance abuse therapy and mental health services. In fact, Mother 

admitted she did not complete the requirements set forth in the case plan. 

Furthermore, when asked about her lack of participation, Mother stated 

she did not believe she had a substance abuse problem and that she did 

not like attending therapy, and even agreed on cross examination that she 

had considered the services an inconvenience. 

¶18 Mother seems to argue her failure to participate in services is 

excusable because she became discouraged when ADES requested the 

juvenile court change the case plan to severance and adoption. In support 

of this argument, Mother states all she needed was “some positive 

reinforcement.” 

¶19 However, we have expressly held that enforcement of A.R.S. 

§ 8-533.B.8 provides parents with an incentive to overcome addiction and 

assume parental responsibilities as soon as possible. See J-501568, 177 

Ariz. at 576, 869 P.2d at 1229. Mother does not cite any authority, and we 

cannot find any, that excuses a parent’s lack of participation based upon 
AMBER W. v. ADES, B.W. 

Decision of the Court 

6 

discouragement. The record, on the other hand, demonstrates ADES 

made several attempts to engage Mother in services. Throughout this 

case, ADES provided Mother with transportation and repeatedly called 

urging her to engage in services. Mother’s case manager also offered to 

help Mother in applying for Social Security benefits to generate income. 

¶20 We find sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

decision severing Mother’s parental relationship to Child under A.R.S. § 8-

533.B.8(b). Because sufficient evidence supports severance based upon the 

length of time of Child’s out-of-home placement, we need not discuss the 

juvenile court’s order terminating Mother’s rights pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-

533.B.3. See Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 251, ¶27, 995 P.2d at 687. Mother does 

not dispute the court’s finding that termination was in Child’s best 

interests; we therefore do not address it. 

CONCLUSION 

¶21 For the above stated reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s 

order terminating Mother’s relationship with the Child.