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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DARREN G., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, S.G., L.G., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 16-0078

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD22346

The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

David W. Bell Attorney at Law, Higley

By David W. Bell

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Amber E. Pershon

Counsel for Appellee DCS
DARREN G. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding 

Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

K E S S L E R, Judge:

¶1 Darren G. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to L.G. and S.G. (collectively “the children”). 

For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 The children came into the Department of Child Safety’s 

(“DCS”) care in May 2014 when the mother of the children, Stephanie G.

(“Mother”) was arrested for shoplifting and possession of a dangerous 

drug.1 While incarcerated, Mother left the children with Father, who was 

only allowed supervised visitation due to a prior court order. The children 

were found dependent as to Father on June 12, 2014, and dependent as to 

Mother on August 8, 2014.

¶3 The children had previously been found dependent in 2012 

after L.G. overdosed on medication. Both Mother and Father failed to get 

medical attention for L.G. until she became unresponsive and began 

frothing at the mouth. The parents received reunification services and the 

children were returned to Mother in February 2014. However, Father was 

only allowed supervised visitation with the children following the 

dependency. Additionally, the family had previous DCS reports going as 

far back as 2007, although none of those had led to a dependency

proceeding. The reports included descriptions of the home as being filthy 

and having dog feces in the hallway, S.G. having bruises on his back from 

Father’s hitting him, Mother violently shaking L.G., and a second incident 

where L.G. overdosed on Mother’s pills.

¶4 After the children were found dependent, DCS offered Father 

reunification services including a psychological evaluation, drug testing 

 

1 Although Mother also appealed the termination of her parental 

rights, her appeal was dismissed August 4, 2016, pursuant to Arizona Rule 

of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 106(G)(1).
DARREN G. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

through TERROS, counseling, and a parent-aide. Although Father 

participated in counseling and parent-aide services, he did not fully 

participate in substance abuse testing. Father repeatedly failed to test and 

failed to provide DCS with a current medical marijuana card or medical 

reports showing a need for the medical marijuana.

2 Consequently, he was 

closed out of TERROS twice. 

¶5 Additionally, the DCS case manager testified about multiple 

concerns with Father during supervised visits with the children. The 

parent-aide reported on more than one occasion the home smelled of 

marijuana and Father appeared under the influence. Father also fell asleep 

during his supervised visits on multiple occasions and had liquor and 

marijuana where the children could access it.

¶6 In December 2015, DCS moved for termination of parental 

rights as to both Mother and Father. The grounds alleged against Father 

were that he was unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of a 

history of chronic abuse of dangerous drugs, controlled substances, and/or 

alcohol and that reasonable grounds existed to believe that the condition 

would continue for a prolonged indeterminate period pursuant to Arizona 

Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 8-533(B)(3) (2016).

3 Father failed to 

appear for the initial severance hearing and the juvenile court found no 

good cause for the failure to appear and held that Father therefore waived 

his right to contest the allegations against him. Father appeared at the 

contested severance hearing and was allowed to cross-examine witnesses 

as well as argue that severance was not in the children’s best interest. 

¶7 In February 2016, the juvenile court found DCS had proved 

its allegations against Father and terminated his parental rights to the 

children. Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. 

§§ 8-235(A) (2016), 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016), and 12-2101(A)(1) (2016).

DISCUSSION

¶8 A parent’s right to custody and control of his own child is 

fundamental, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982), but not absolute, 

 

2 When Father had a valid medical marijuana card is unclear, but the 

DCS case manager testified Father’s card had expired by the time of the 

severance hearing.

3 We cite to the current version of statutes unless changes material to 

this decision have occurred.
DARREN G. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 248-49, ¶¶ 11-12 (2000). 

To justify severance of a parental relationship, the State must prove by clear 

and convincing evidence one of the statutory grounds in A.R.S. § 8-533(B).

Michael J., at 249, ¶ 12. The State must also prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that severance of the parent-child relationship is in the best 

interest of the child. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288, ¶ 41 (2005).

¶9 Because the juvenile court is in the best position to weigh the 

evidence and judge credibility, “we will accept the juvenile court’s findings 

of fact unless no reasonable evidence supports those findings, and we will 

affirm a severance order unless it is clearly erroneous.” Jesus M. v. Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). We do not reweigh 

the evidence, but “look only to determine if there is evidence to sustain the 

court’s ruling,” Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 

(App. 2004) and reverse only if no reasonable evidence to support the ruling 

exists, Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 376, ¶ 13 (App. 

2010).

¶10 Father argues the juvenile court erred in finding that his 

marijuana use was improper because his custody rights were protected 

under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (“AMMA”), A.R.S. §§ 36-2801 to 

-2819 (2014 and Supp. 2015). Additionally, Father argues that the court 

erred in finding that he was unable to discharge his parental responsibilities 

due to his drug use. 

¶11 We disagree. A.R.S. § 36-2813(D) (2016) states:

No person may be denied custody of or visitation or 

parenting time with a minor, and there is no presumption of 

neglect or child endangerment for conduct allowed under this 

chapter, unless the person’s behavior creates an unreasonable 

danger to the safety of the minor as established by clear and

convincing evidence. 

We assume without deciding that A.R.S. § 36-2813(D) applies to parental 

severance cases in which a parent lawfully uses medical marijuana 

pursuant to the AMMA. Here, however, if Father ever had a medical 

marijuana card it is undisputed that he did not have one at the time of the 

contested severance hearing but continued to use marijuana. Accordingly, 

he cannot rely on A.R.S. § 36-2813(D) to protect his parental rights from 

severance under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3). 

¶12 The juvenile court also did not err in finding that DCS had 

met its burden of proof under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3). Pursuant to that statute, 
DARREN G. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

a court may terminate parental rights if clear and convincing evidence is 

presented showing the “parent is unable to discharge parental 

responsibilities because of . . . a history of chronic abuse of . . . controlled 

substances . . . and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the 

condition will continue for a prolonged indeterminate period.” A.R.S. § 8-

533(B)(3). A DCS case worker testified that on numerous occasions during 

supervised visits, the parent-aide reported that the home smelled of 

marijuana, Father appeared to be under the influence, and Father would 

fall asleep. Father also failed to keep his marijuana out of the reach of the 

children. Because this evidence supports the court’s finding that Father was 

unable to discharge his parental responsibilities due to drug use, we affirm 

the termination of Father’s parental rights to the children. 

¶13 Father also argues that the court erred by finding that 

severance was in the best interest of the children because the children were 

not in an adoptive placement nor had one been located. We disagree.

¶14 To show that termination is in the best interest of the children, 

DCS must prove the children “would derive an affirmative benefit from 

termination or incur a detriment by continuing in the relationship.” Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 6 (App. 2004). “The 

benefit of severance to the child is that which the legislature intended: 

freedom to be adopted into a stable and nurturing home.” In re Maricopa 

Cty. Juvenile Action No. JS-8441I, 175 Ariz. 463, 469 (App. 1993), abrogated on 

other grounds by Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 282, 288, ¶¶ 12, 41. DCS is not required 

however to show that a specific adoption plan is in place before terminating 

a parent’s rights, it only needs to show that the children are adoptable. See 

Juvenile Action No. JS-8441I, 175 Ariz. at 469. Although the children are not 

in an adoptive placement, the DCS case worker testified that they are 

adoptable. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding that 

severance was in the best interest of the children. 
DARREN G. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶15 For the foregoing reasons, the record supports the juvenile 

court’s termination of Father’s parental rights, and that severance is in the 

best interest of the children. Therefore, we affirm.