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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DESTINY F., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, C.F., D.B., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 19-0260

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD35938

The Honorable Randall H. Warner, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Denise L. Carroll, Esq., Scottsdale

By Denise Lynn Carroll

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Doriane F. Zwillinger

Counsel for Appellee DCS

FILED 1-28-2020
DESTINY F. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

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

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Destiny F. ("Mother") appeals the superior court's order 

terminating her parental relationship with her two children, C.F. and D.B. 

For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 C.F. was born substance-exposed to marijuana in 2013, and 

Mother tested positive for opiates during her pregnancy with D.B., who 

was born in 2015. In April 2018, the Department of Child Safety ("DCS") 

received a report that Mother and D.B.'s father were abusing drugs in the 

home and had engaged in domestic violence. Mother admitted to 

investigators she used cocaine and marijuana. DCS also observed that the 

children and the home were dirty, and D.B. appeared undernourished. 

DCS put a safety plan in place, offered Mother in-home case-management 

services, and asked her to pursue substance-abuse treatment. Mother did 

not engage in substance-abuse treatment, prompting DCS to take custody 

of the children and file a dependency petition in June 2018. The superior 

court found the children dependent in August 2018.

¶3 During the dependency, DCS referred Mother for substanceabuse testing and treatment several times, but she barely participated. As 

a result, all five of her referrals to TERROS for substance-abuse treatment 

were closed. She tested positive for cocaine and marijuana in June 2018 and 

then did not test again until 2019. Mother submitted one negative test in 

March and another one in May 2019. She then submitted five negative tests 

between June 18 and July 5, 2019, but thereafter stopped testing and never

reengaged with testing.

¶4 DCS also referred Mother for a parent aide. Mother engaged 

in the visits but attended only one of her skills sessions, causing the parent 

aide to close the referral. DCS later provided Mother supervised visitation 

from February to May 2019, and she participated. Mother also had 

opportunities to visit the children through their placement, but she did not 
DESTINY F. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

do so. Finally, Mother did not provide DCS with evidence of stable housing 

or income and maintained only sporadic contact with her DCS case 

manager.

¶5 In February 2019, DCS moved to terminate Mother's parental 

relationship with the children on grounds of abandonment and substanceabuse. See Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 8-533(B)(1), (3) 

(2020).1 DCS later amended its motion to include the ground of ninemonths out-of-home placement under § 8-533(B)(8)(a). After a termination 

adjudication hearing in July 2019, the superior court ordered Mother's 

parental rights terminated on the grounds of substance abuse and nine 

months' time in care.

2 Regarding services, the superior court found that 

DCS had

made reasonable efforts to preserve the family relationship 

and provided Mother the time and opportunity to participate 

in programs designed to improve her ability to care for the 

Children. The court makes this finding despite the 

Department's failure to continue Mother's visits with the 

Children after the supervised visit referral expired in May 

2019. "Reasonable efforts" does not require the Department 

to be flawless; rather, the issue is whether, on the totality of 

the circumstances, the Department made reasonable efforts to 

preserve the family relationship. Mother should have had 

additional visits after May, but that would not change the fact 

that she is unable to parent due to chronic substance abuse.

Mother timely appealed the court's order. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A)

(2020) and 12-120.21(A)(1) (2020).

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal, Mother argues insufficient evidence supports the 

court's finding that DCS made reasonable efforts to provide her with 

appropriate reunification services. Mother points to DCS's failure to refer 

her for a psychological evaluation and counseling "at a time when she was 

1 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite the current 

version of a statute or rule.

2 At the termination hearing, the superior court granted DCS's oral 

motion to withdraw the abandonment ground.
DESTINY F. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

providing negative" urinalysis tests, and DCS's failure to provide her with 

visits after May 2019. DCS argues that Mother waived any argument about 

services, but because Mother's counsel raised the issue at the termination 

hearing, we decline to apply waiver. See Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. 

Sec., 234 Ariz. 174, 179, ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2014) (applying waiver when parent 

offered no challenge to services, either before the termination hearing or at 

the hearing itself).

¶7 When seeking termination of a parent's rights on grounds of 

substance-abuse or nine-months out-of-home placement, DCS must make 

diligent, or reasonable, efforts to provide the parent with appropriate 

reunification services. Jennifer G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 450, 

453, ¶¶ 12-13 & n.3 (App. 2005). To satisfy this requirement, DCS must 

provide a parent with "the time and opportunity to participate in programs 

designed to help her become an effective parent." Maricopa County Juv. 

Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353 (App. 1994). DCS, however, is not 

required to provide every conceivable service, nor must it ensure that the 

parent participates in each service it offers. Id. DCS need not undertake 

futile rehabilitative efforts but must provide services that have a reasonable 

prospect of success. Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185, 

192, ¶ 34 (App. 1999).

¶8 As the superior court found, DCS's efforts to provide Mother 

with services were not flawless. DCS did not offer Mother any services 

focused on domestic violence. Additionally, as the superior court noted, 

absent a court order to the contrary, DCS should have ensured continuing 

visits between Mother and the children in May, June and July 2019. See 

Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JD-5312, 178 Ariz. 372, 374-75 (App. 1994) 

(parents retain a fundamental right to associate with their children unless 

that right is judicially terminated). On this record, however, the lapses 

Mother alleges are immaterial to the termination order, which focuses 

solely on Mother's unresolved substance-abuse issues.

¶9 DCS's main concern throughout the dependency was 

Mother's substance abuse, and Mother does not dispute that DCS provided 

her with the time and opportunity to participate in substance-abuse testing 

and treatment. Mother argues DCS should have referred her for a 

psychological evaluation and counseling a few weeks before the 

termination hearing, during a two-week period in which she was providing

consistently negative drug tests. But her failure to test consistently before 

and after those two weeks undermines her argument. After that two-week 

period, Mother stopped testing and never established lasting sobriety or 

demonstrated consistent progress in overcoming her substance-abuse 
DESTINY F. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

issues. Notably, Mother does not explain how a psychological evaluation 

or counseling would have had a reasonable prospect of success in helping 

her overcome her addictions – the main barrier to her ability to parent the 

children at the time of the termination hearing. On this record, reasonable 

evidence supports the court's finding that DCS made reasonable efforts to 

provide Mother with appropriate services.3

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order terminating 

Mother's parental rights to the two children.

3 Because reasonable evidence supports this element under the 

substance-abuse ground, we need not consider Mother's arguments as to 

the nine-months out-of-home placement ground. See Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. 

Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 49, ¶ 14 (App. 2004).