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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JEFFREY W., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, J.W., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0350

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300JD202000001

The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Amanda Adams

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 6-29-2021
JEFFREY W. v. DCS, J.W.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Jeffrey W. (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to his son J.W.1 For reasons that follow, we 

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

¶2 Father is the biological parent of J.W., born in August 2019.

After J.W.’s birth, hospital staff reported to the Arizona Department of 

Child Safety (“DCS”) that J.W. had tested positive for illegal drugs. At the 

hospital, J.W.’s mother admitted to using non-prescribed opiates during her 

pregnancy. DCS then interviewed Father, and he admitted using

marijuana—but indicated he had a medical marijuana card—and being on 

a suboxone program.

¶3 After J.W. was discharged from the hospital, DCS initiated a 

safety plan and provided services, including drug testing and in-home 

visits from social services. But during the following three months, Father 

acted aggressively toward in-home care personnel and refused to submit to 

drug tests.

¶4 In December 2019, J.W.’s mother tested positive for 

methamphetamine and heroin. DCS became concerned that Father was 

also using drugs, and when a DCS specialist visited the home, Father fell 

asleep standing up while talking to the specialist. DCS requested Father 

submit to a drug test, but he refused. After Father’s refusal, DCS took J.W. 

into care.

¶5 DCS then petitioned the court to find J.W. dependent as to 

Father, and after Father pled no contest, the court adjudicated J.W. 

dependent in January 2020. Following the adjudication, the court adopted 

concurrent case plans of family reunification and severance and adoption.

1 J.W.’s mother’s parental rights were also terminated, but she is not a 

party to this appeal.
JEFFREY W. v. DCS, J.W.

Decision of the Court

3

DCS offered Father services, including substance abuse assessment, 

behavioral health intake and classes, counseling, anger management 

education, supervised visitation (including transportation to visits), and 

parenting classes.

¶6 From January to May 2020, Father participated sporadically 

in services. He submitted to one hair follicle drug test that was positive for 

morphine, cocaine, THC, methamphetamine, amphetamine, and heroin.

Instead of the eight to ten urine drug tests per month that DCS required, he 

submitted to only four—of which two were positive for methamphetamine 

and amphetamine. He participated in the intake for behavioral health 

counseling and attended one session of individual counseling but did not 

participate in any classes beyond that. Father neverregistered for parenting 

classes, and he missed many visitations with J.W., stating various excuses, 

including that he was busy, he forgot, or that he did not like the case aide.

¶7 In May 2020, Father was arrested for ten methamphetamine-, 

fentanyl-, and heroin-related offenses. Father rejected a plea offer of 10 

years in prison and is facing 20 to 25 years’ imprisonment if convicted. 

Following Father’s arrest, DCS informed Father about drug classes in jail. 

But Father was subsequently charged with attempting to smuggle 

contraband (fentanyl) into the jail, and as a result, he was unable to 

participate in those classes.

¶8 In June 2020, the court changed the case plan to severance and 

adoption, and DCS moved to sever parental rights on grounds of chronic 

substances abuse and six-months’ time-in-care. See A.R.S. §§ 8-533(B)(3), 

(8)(b). Following a contested severance trial, the superior court severed 

Father’s parental rights based on both grounds. Father timely appealed, 

and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 8-235(A).

DISCUSSION

¶9 To terminate parental rights, a superior court must find by 

clear and convincing evidence at least one statutory ground for severance

and by a preponderance of the evidence that severance is in the child’s best 

interests. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22 (2005). We will affirm 

the superior court’s order if reasonable evidence supports it, 

acknowledging that the superior court is in the “best position to weigh the 

evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve 

disputed facts.” Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 

(App. 2009) (citation omitted).
JEFFREY W. v. DCS, J.W.

Decision of the Court

4

¶10 Father asserts that DCS did not provide adequate

reunification services. Severance cannot be based on chronic substance 

abuse or six months’ time-in-care unless DCS first provides services to 

attempt to reunify the family. See Jennifer G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 

Ariz. 450, 453, ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (requiring DCS to make reasonable efforts 

to reunify the family under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3)); A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(b)

(requiring DCS make “a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification 

services” to the parent). In assessing whether DCS has made adequate 

efforts to reunify the family, the court looks to the totality of the 

circumstances, including the services DCS offered throughout the 

dependency and the parent’s participation in those services. Donald W. v. 

Dep’t of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 9, 22–23, ¶¶ 48, 49 (App. 2019). DCS need not 

provide “every conceivable service” or those that would prove futile. Mary 

Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185, 192, ¶ 34 (App. 1999) 

(citation omitted); Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 

353 (App. 1994). Instead, DCS fulfills its obligation when it provides a 

parent with the time and opportunity to participate in services that have a 

“reasonable prospect of success.” Mary Ellen C., 193 Ariz. at 192, ¶ 34.

¶11 Father argues that DCS did not provide adequate 

reunification services after his incarceration. Even though Father did not

contest services in the superior court and has arguably waived this 

challenge on appeal, see Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174, 

179, ¶ 18 (App. 2014), we address his argument and conclude that the 

evidence supports a finding that DCS provided adequate reunification 

services.

¶12 Although Father argues that post-incarceration services were 

inadequate, his argument does not acknowledge his failure to participate in 

the services throughout the dependency and DCS’s efforts throughout the 

dependency. During the dependency, Father missed visitations with J.W., 

failed to participate in counseling, and refused to submit to drug testing.

And when Father did submit to drug tests, he tested positive for illegal 

substances. Further, when Father was incarcerated, DCS made him aware 

of substance abuse classes in the jail. But his behavior (bringing fentanyl 

into the jail) rendered him unable to participate in those services. Thus, the 

superior court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Father failed 

to participate in services and that the services DCS provided were adequate.

Cf. Jordan C., 223 Ariz. at 93, ¶ 17 (noting the severance statutes allow the 

court to consider the parent’s participation when assessing the adequacy of 

the services DCS provided).
JEFFREY W. v. DCS, J.W.

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶13 The superior court’s order is affirmed.