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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

WILDA M., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, G.M., T.M., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 16-0524

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD528951

The Honorable Timothy J. Ryan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of H Clark Jones LLC, Mesa

By Clark Jones

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Amanda L. Adams

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
WILDA M. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 Wilda M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order 

severing her parental rights to G.M. and T.M. For the reasons that follow, 

we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother is the biological parent of the subject children, who 

were born in August 2010 and March 2015.1 The Department of Child 

Safety (DCS) became involved in their parent-child relationship after DCS 

received a report in March 2015 that T.M. had been born substance exposed 

to marijuana. Mother tested negative for illicit substances at the hospital 

after T.M.’s birth, but admitted to sporadic use of marijuana during her 

pregnancy. She denied using other drugs. Due to mother’s willingness to 

participate in in-home services that DCS would provide, mother was 

discharged for the hospital with T.M. after a DCS case manager consented 

to her doing so. 

¶3 Over the subsequent few weeks, however, mother failed to 

keep in contact with DCS, and DCS was unable to locate mother. DCS 

ultimately learned that mother had been arrested on April 13, 2015, after a 

domestic violence dispute with her roommate. Mother was released the 

next day, and left the residence she shared with her roommate. She left G.M. 

with her roommate, and reportedly “bounc[ed] around from house to 

house” with T.M. DCS intervened and took temporary custody of both 

children and placed them in the same licensed foster home. DCS also filed 

a petition in which it alleged the children were dependent due to mother’s 

neglect, based on substance-abuse, domestic violence (not involving the 

children), and mental illness. 

¶4 The juvenile court found the children dependent in July 2015 

and approved a case plan of family reunification. Mother agreed with DCS 

 

1 The children’s alleged fathers are not parties of this appeal. 
WILDA M. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

to participate in court-ordered services, including substance-abuse services, 

random drug testing, a psychological evaluation, parent-aide services, and 

supervised visits with the children. She also agreed to “self-refer” for anger 

management and domestic-violence classes. Mother participated in the 

DCS services, and had supervised visits with her children twice each week.

However, mother failed to consistently submit to drug testing, and 

submitted diluted urine samples. Mother eventually completed an outpatient substance-abuse program in October 2015, however, she 

subsequently tested positive for alcohol consumption. 

¶5 Because mother had continued a romantic relationship with a 

convicted felon while on probation for a prior aggravated DUI conviction,

her probation was revoked. She was then sentenced to serve 2.5 years of 

incarceration. Mother expected to be released from prison in May 2017, but 

her maximum end date is December 2017. DCS did not facilitate in-person 

prison visits between mother and her children, but she had telephonic visits 

with them. 

¶6 The superior court granted DCS’s request to change the case 

plan to severance and adoption and DCS moved to sever mother’s parental 

rights on the length-of-felony-sentence ground in March 2016. See Arizona 

Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 8-533(B)(4). At the contested severance 

hearing in October 2016, the DCS case manager testified that after mother’s 

release, mother would not likely be reunited with the children for another 

year because mother would need to reestablish a relationship with the 

children, demonstrate stability, and complete anger management and 

substance-abuse treatment.2 The case manager also testified that the 

children’s placement was willing to adopt them. 

¶7 In December 2016, the court issued an order severing 

mother’s parental rights. The court found that the state had met its burden 

in proving the statutory ground, and that termination of mother’s parental 

rights was in the children’s best interests. Mother timely appealed to this 

court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A) (2014), 12-

120.21(A)(1) (2016), and -2101(A)(1) (2016).

 

2 Notably, the record shows that during her incarceration mother had 

participated in various services, including over ten months of “Confronting 

Addictive Behaviors,” Women in Recovery, twenty hours of DUI 

programming through Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and auto 

tech and graphic arts classes. 
WILDA M. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

¶8 The sole issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court erred in 

finding that the termination of mother’s parental rights was in the 

children’s best interests. Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s 

finding of the requisite statutory ground. 

¶9 As relevant here, mother argues that DCS failed to meet the 

evidentiary standard to establish that the children would accrue an 

affirmative benefit from the termination of mother’s parental rights, or be 

harmed by continuing the parent-child relationship. The evidence in the 

record from the juvenile court indicates otherwise. 

¶10 The best interest inquiry “must include a finding as to how 

the child would benefit from a severance [of the parent-child relationship] 

or be harmed by the continuation of the relationship.” Maricopa Cty. Juv. 

Action No. JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5, 804 P.2d 730, 734 (1990). In evaluating 

whether severance is in a child’s best interest, the juvenile court is required 

to conduct the inquiry considering “the totality of the circumstances.” 

Dominque M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 96, 99, ¶ 12, 376 P.3d 699, 702 

(App. 2016). Therefore, even where a bond exists between a parent and her 

child—as mother argues exists in this matter, that bond is not dispositive in 

the best interest analysis. See id. at 98, ¶ 12, 376 P.3d at 701.

¶11 This court has also held that a finding that severance is in a 

child’s best interest may be accomplished by a showing, by preponderance 

of the evidence, that a child is adoptable3 and the current placement is 

meeting the child’s needs. See Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 

Ariz. 43, 50, ¶ 19, 83 P.3d 43, 50 (App. 2004). 

¶12 As noted above, at the time of the severance hearing in 

October 2016, mother was expected to be away from G.M. and T.M. for 

approximately another year, after being incarcerated since November 2015. 

Considering that, according to DCS, mother would need additional time to 

demonstrate her ability to provide stability and care for her children and to 

complete her rehabilitative services, any reunification between mother and 

the children would, at best, be prolonged. During that time, the children 

 

3 See Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 352, 884 

P.2d 234, 238 (App. 1994) (“[DCS] need not show that it has a specific 

adoption plan before terminating a parent’s rights; [DCS] must show that 

the children are adoptable.”). 
WILDA M. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

could be left in limbo, for an uncertain period, in the state’s custody. Under 

these circumstances, DCS’s testimony that the children’s placement had 

been meeting their needs and was willing to adopt the children, was more 

than sufficient to support the court’s finding that termination of mother’s 

parental rights was in the children’s best interests. 

CONCLUSION

¶13 Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating

mother’s parental rights to both children.