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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

NEAL I.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, A.I.,

Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 21-0070 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD40132

The Honorable Lori Bustamante, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Neal I., Phoenix

Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jennifer R. Blum

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 10-12-2021
NEAL I. v. DCS, A.I.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Neal I. (“Father”) appeals from the superior court’s order 

finding his daughter dependent. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Heather M. (“Mother”) are the biological parents 

of a daughter, A.I., born in November 2009. A.I. has suffered from serious 

mental and behavioral health issues since March 2020. She lived with 

Mother, but Mother could not control her behavior, which led to frequent 

visits from police and crisis response teams. Father’s presence in his 

daughter’s life was sporadic. He petitioned the superior court for parenting 

time in September 2020. And yet, he simultaneously asked the court to 

relieve him of his court-ordered duty to provide her insurance.

¶3 A.I.’s mental health worsened in the summer of 2020, and 

doctors recommended outpatient treatment, but Father neither followed up 

nor arranged for her care. Over the final week of October 2020, A.I. was 

twice hospitalized in the psychiatric unit. She was suicidal and physically 

violent. After the second visit, the hospital refused to release A.I. to either 

parent because she said she was afraid of Father and did not feel safe with 

her parents. The hospital contacted the Department of Child Safety, and 

DCS secured temporary physical custody of A.I. on October 30. A.I. was 

hospitalized twice more during the first week of November.

¶4 Around that time, DCS petitioned the superior court to find 

A.I. dependent as to Mother and Father, alleging each was “unwilling or 

unable to provide proper and effective parental care and control by 

neglecting to provide a safe and stable home environment and proper 

supervision and meet the child’s mental and behavioral health needs.”1

1 Mother stipulated to the dependency. 
NEAL I. v. DCS, A.I.

Decision of the Court

3

DCS also claimed that A.I. needed “a [more] structured environment or 

higher level of care” than the family could provide. 

¶5 In February 2021, the superior court held a contested 

dependency hearing, where it heard testimony from Father and the DCS 

case manager. Father only challenged the allegations that he physically

abused or neglected the child2 but did not contest the dependency itself.

DCS asked the court for separate dependency and neglect findings. The 

court clarified it was “not going to enter any physical abuse findings,” but 

concluded A.I. was dependent under A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(i) finding:

Father is unwilling or unable to provide proper and effective 

parental care and control by neglecting to provide a safe and 

stable home, proper supervision and failing to meet the 

mental and behavioral health needs of the child. Arrowhead 

Hospital labeled the child’s issues as behavioral specifically 

triggered by her parents. Father has failed to ensure the child 

receives proper mental and behavioral health treatment and 

continues to lack involvement in the child's mental and 

behavioral health issues.

¶6 Father appealed. We have jurisdiction. See Ariz. Const. art 6, 

§ 9; A.R.S §§ 8-235, 12-120.21(A)(1), 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 We review the superior court’s dependency order for an 

abuse of discretion, accepting its findings of fact unless clearly erroneous

and affirming the order unless it is unsupported by reasonable evidence. 

Joelle M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 525, 527, ¶ 9 (App. 2018).

¶8 A dependent child includes one “[i]n need of proper and 

effective parental care and control and who has no parent or guardian 

willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care and control.” A.R.S. § 

8-201(15)(a)(i). The primary concern in a dependency case is always the 

child’s best interests. Joelle M., 245 Ariz. at 527, ¶ 10.

¶9 The record contains reasonable evidence to support the 

superior court’s decision. A.I.’s mental health plummeted in March 2020, 

2 At the hearing, DCS's attorney remarked that Father did not seem to 

be contesting the dependency. The court adopted the same understanding.
NEAL I. v. DCS, A.I.

Decision of the Court

4

culminating in four hospitalizations between October 24 and November 6. 

And yet, in September 2020, Father asked the court to relieve him of his 

duty to provide her insurance, just when his daughter needed help most. 

The court also heard that Father never arranged for the outpatient mental 

health treatment recommended by the hospital in 2020, and he missed all 

five Child and Family Team (“CFT”) meetings leading to the dependency 

hearing. 

¶10 We are not persuaded by Father’s arguments. First, Father 

asks this court to “reconsider the evidence,” ignoring or discounting the 

weight of adverse evidence, but we will not reweigh the evidence on 

appeal. See Joelle M., 245 Ariz. at 528, ¶ 18. The superior court is best 

positioned to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, gauge credibility and 

resolve questions of fact. Id.

¶11 Second, Father contends his attorney was ineffective because 

the attorney did not present evidence that Father was not invited to attend 

the CFTs or call Father as a rebuttal witness to contest the allegations of 

physical abuse.

3 But, Father must show “a reasonable probability exists 

that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different.” Bob H. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 225 Ariz. 279, 282, ¶ 10 (App. 

2010) (citation omitted). He never tries to meet this burden. What is more, 

the superior court did not find that Father physically abused his daughter;

nor was A.I. found dependent “by reason of [the] abuse, neglect, cruelty or 

depravity [of] a parent.” A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(iii).

¶12 Lastly, although the superior court never found that Father 

physically abused his daughter, Father fears that DCS might list him on its 

central registry of substantiated abuse and neglect allegations. We have no 

jurisdiction over this potential development. See Iman v. S. Pac. Co., 7 Ariz. 

App. 16, 20 (1968) (claim based on “future or speculative facts” not ripe for 

judicial determination). If placed on the registry, Father may challenge his 

status under A.R.S. § 8-811(A)-(E).

3 Father’s opening brief offers no legal authorities or record citations 

in violation of our appellate rules, which might constitute waiver of the 

argument. See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62 

(App. 2009). In our discretion, however, we reach the merits based on our 

review of the record. See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 

342 (App. 1984) (recognizing that courts prefer to decide each case upon its 

merits rather than dismissing on procedural grounds).
NEAL I. v. DCS, A.I.

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶13 We affirm the superior court’s dependency finding under 

A.R.S. § 8–201(15)(a)(i).