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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

JUAN V., Appellant
,

v

.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, J.V., E.V., Appellees

.
No. 1 CA

- JV 16

- 0113

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. JD16257 JD18172 The Honorable Lisa Daniel Flores
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
John L. Popilek, PC
, Scottsdale By John L. Popilek Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office
, Mesa By Amanda L. Adams C ounsel for Appellee DCSJUAN V. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

J O H N S E N , Judge:

¶1 Juan V. ("Father") appeals from the superior court's order terminating his parental rights to his two daughters. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and a woman not a party to this appeal are the parents of two daughters, one born in 2014 and the ot her in 2015. Both girls were born substance

- abused and were taken into custody of the Department of Child Safety ("DCS") s oon after their births.

¶3 Father, 30 years old at the time of the severance trial, first began using marijuana at the age of nine or te n

. He testified he used marijuana every other day until he stopped using in 2012. He pled guilty to possession of marijuana in 2012 and was placed on two years' probation. In 2014
, he pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia and was placed
on two years' probation, to run concurrently with his initial probation term. After DCS took custody of his older daughter, DCS offered Father various services, including substance

- abuse assessment and treatment through TERROS, random drug testing through TASC, psychiatric and psychological evaluations, parent

- aide services and supervised visits. Father substantially failed to participate in services. Most significantly, during the first six months of 2015, he provided only 10 of 25 mandatory drug tests

. Duri ng that time, three times he tested positive for opiates, which he attributed to having taken pain

- killers he borrowed from a friend. Because of his failure to participate in drug testing, TERROS closed out referrals for him in November 2014 and April 201 5. Father also failed to attend three sched uled psychological evaluations.

¶4 After the younger daughter was born in August 2015, DCS continued to try to provide substance

- abuse and drug

- testing services to Father. Father did not engage in the services, cau sing TERROS to close out his third referral ; TASC also closed his referral.

¶5 After a trial in February 2016, the superior court issued an order terminating Father's rights to both children on grounds of substanceJUAN V. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

3 abuse and nine months' time in care. We hav e jurisdiction of Father's timely appeal pursuant to Article 6, S ection 9
, of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes ("A

. R

. S

. ") sections 8

- 235(A) (2016), 12

- 2101 (2016) an d Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103A

. 1

DISCUSSION

¶6 The right to custody of one's child is fundamental but not absolute. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. , 196 Ariz. 246, 248, ¶¶ 11

- 12 (2000). The superior court may terminate a parent

- child relationship upon clear and convincing evidence of at least one of the statutory grounds set out in A.R.S. § 8

- 533(B) (2016). Michael J. , 196 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 12. Additionally, the court must find by a preponderance of the evidence t hat termination is in the child's best interests. Kent K. v. Bobby M. , 210 Ariz. 279
, 284, ¶ 22 (2005). We re view a termination order for an abuse of discretion. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec

. , 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 (App. 2004). Because the superior co urt is in the best position to " weigh the evidence, observe the parties, ju dge the credibility of witnesses, and make appropriate findings," we will accept its findings of fact unless no

rea sonable evidence supports them. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec

. , 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002).

¶7 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 8

- 533(B)(3), the court may terminate the rights of a parent who is "unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of . . . a history of chronic abuse of dangerous drugs, controlled substances or alcohol and there are reasonable grounds to believe t hat the condition will continue for a prolonged indeterminate period."

¶8 Father argues he has not used marijuana since 2012, and that the superior court mistakenly understood him to say that at the time of trial, he used marijuana every day. He also argues that the only times he tested positive for drugs during the dependency and severance proceedings were the occasions on which he took a friend's pain

- killers. Notwithstanding Father's arguments, reasonable evidence supported the superior court's finding th at he has a history of chronic drug abuse and that it would

c o ntinue for a prolonged period. Father repeatedly disregarded opportunities to resolve his drug issues. His contention that he no longer uses drugs is belied by the fact that he missed more ran dom drug tests than he took during these proceedings and, as noted, he abused a friend's prescription drugs. Furthermore , at trial, Father denied he had a drug

1 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version.JUAN V. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

4 problem and minimized the effects his drug use had on his family. Based

on Father's record, th e case manager testified Father had not remedied his drug use, his drug abuse would continue for a prolonged indeterminate period and that in the meantime, absent termination, his children would be at risk.

¶9 Under the circumstances, Father's failure to demo nstrate that he could and had abstained from drug use, combined with the evi dence recounted above, supports the court's finding of the statutory ground for severance based on clear and convincing evidence. See Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ

. Sec

. , 224 Ariz. 3 73, 379, ¶ 29 (App. 2010). Because we affirm the court's termination order based on chronic drug abuse, we need not consider its order of termination based on time in care.

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the reasons stated above, we affirm the superior court's ord er terminating Father's rights to his two daughters.