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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

GUTHRIE S.
, Appellant
,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, A.S., Appellee s

.

No. 1 CA

- JV 16

- 0344

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD527936 The Honorable Karen L. O’Connor
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale By Christopher Stavris Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office
, Mesa By Nicholas Chapman

- Hushek C ounsel for Appellee Department of Child SafetyGUTHRIE S. v. DCS, A.S. Decision of the Cou rt

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined. 1

B R O W N
, Chief Judge:

¶1 Guthrie S. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to his son , challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory grounds for termination

. Because reasonable evidence supports the court’s order , we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Lindsey B. (“Mother”) 2 are the biological parents of A.S. ( “ the child” ) , born in July 2014. The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) became involved almost immediately, after learning the child was born substance exposed and was diagnosed with Neonate Abstinence Syndrome. At the time of the child’s birth, Father had pending criminal charges for armed robbery, burglary, and aggravated assault. 3 In August 2014, DCS filed a petition requesting an in

- home dependency

. Following a he aring
, t he court entered a preliminary protective order allowing Mother to maintain phy sical custody of the child , with a safety plan. From the outset of the safety plan, Father received supervised visits, parent aide services , substance abuse assessment, treatment and testing, and family preservation services

. ¶3 The following week
, DCS removed the child from Mother’s care because the parents violated the safety plan. That same day, Father

1 The Honorable Patricia A. Orozco, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.

2 Mother’s parental rights to the child were also terminated in 2016 but she is not a party to this appeal.

3 In February 2016, Father pled guilty to armed robbery, a class two felony, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. He was
sentence d to three years’ probation

.GUTHRIE S. v. DCS, A.S. Decision of the Cou rt

3 filed a motion for the return of the child. T he juvenile court promptly conducted an evidentiary hearing to consider Father’s request

. T he court denied Father’s motion
, finding Father’s July 2014 hair follicle test was positive for cocaine, which contradicted his statements under oath that he had not used cocaine sin ce the beginning of the year. The court also noted that although Father’s pending criminal charges were “not grounds for removal of the child, given the other circumstances of the case, it . . . should be concerning.” Finally, t he court found that the p arents took the child “from the safety monitor when they had no authority to do so and knowing they were violating” the court’s orders . The child was placed in a licensed foster

- care home.

¶4 The child was found dependent as to the parents in January 201 5 and the co urt adopted a case plan of family reunification. W ith D CS ’s approval, Father completed intensive outpatient treatment with Calvary Recovery Inc. and the parents successfully completed parent aide serv ic es in June 2015. Parents continued to s truggle , however, with substance abuse and treatment , and in October 2015 the court a pproved DCS’s request to place the child with maternal grandmother in South Dakota. In November 2015, t he case plan was changed to severance and adoption and DCS filed a motion for termination based on Ariz ona Revised Statutes (“ A.R.S. ”) section s 8

- 533(B)(3) ( chronic substance abuse ) and 8

- 533(B)( 8 ) (c) ( fifteen months ’ out

- of

- home placement )

. ¶5 A t the severance adjudication in August 2016, DCS case manager Carolyn S kytta testified that over the previous twenty

- two months
, there were numerous problems with Father’s substance abuse test results including positive tests, failing to test, and attempt s to manipulate tests. DCS made four referrals for Father to begin drug treatment through T erros , but he failed to complete any referral

. Although Father complete d the intensive outpatient program with Calvary
, he failed to complete the recommended after

- care. Father’s last urinalysis test occurred in September 2015 and was positive for opiates

. Skytta testified that Father failed to “have a full understanding of [his] substance abuse” and, in light of recent domestic violence allegations involving Mothe r and Father, she worried that the child “would be in danger of neglect and possible abuse.”

¶6 T he juvenile c ourt granted the motion for termination on both statutory grounds

. Addressing Father’s substance abuse, the court reasoned in part as follows:
While Father did successfully complete an Intensive Outpatient treatment with Calvary in June 2015 as statedGUTHRIE S. v. DCS, A.S. Decision of the Cou rt

4 above, he did not follow through with aftercare treatment. His last drug test was September 10, 2015, after he completed the Calvary program. He t ested positive for cocaine and opiates. He has not drug tested for DCS since then. To date, Father has not successfully completed a drug treatment program or demonstrated that he can maintain long

- term sobriety.

. . . . Before trial, Father disclosed t hree hair follicle tests each three months apart. These are tests he did on his own and not through DCS. Father asserts that this establishes his sobriety for the last nine months. The Court disagrees. Father has not demonstrated over the past two years t hat he can maintain long

- term sobriety in order to parent [the child] . Father has not provided DCS a urinalysis test since September 2015. Further, Father has not successfully completed a drug treatment program.

The court also determined that termination was in the child’s best interests, and this timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

¶7 To support an order terminating parental rights, the juvenile court must find at least one statutory ground is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Linda V. v. Ariz . Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 211 Ariz. 76, 78, ¶ 6 (App. 2005). Additionally, the court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the termination is in the best interests of the child. Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 227 Ariz. 282, 285, ¶ 11 (App. 2011); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8

- 533(B)

. As the trier of fact, the juvenile court “is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of the witnesses, and resolve disputed facts.” Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O.
, 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4 (App. 2004)

. Accordingly, we will accept the court’s findings of fact “unless no reasonable evidence supports those findings.” Jennifer B. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.
, 189 Ariz. 553, 555 (App. 199 7).

¶8 Under A.R.S. § 8

- 533(B)(3), the juvenile court may terminate parental rights to a child if “the parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of . . . a history of chronic abuse of dangerous drugs, controlled substances or alcohol a nd there are reasonable grounds to believe that the condition will continue for a prolonged indeterminate period.” Chronic substance abuse is long

- lasting but not necessarilyGUTHRIE S. v. DCS, A.S. Decision of the Cou rt

5 constant substance abuse. Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.
, 224 Ariz. 37 3, 377, ¶ 16 (App. 2010)

. Generally, a parent’s temporary abstinence from drugs and alcohol does not outweigh a significant history of abuse or consistent inability to abstain during the case. Id. at 379, ¶ 29

. And, a child’ s interest in perman ency must prevail over a parent’ s uncertain battle with drugs. Id. (citing In re N.F.
, 579 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa App. 1998 ) )

. ¶9 Father argues the juvenile court erred in finding him unable to discharge his parental responsibilities due to substance abuse. He assert s he demonstrated continued sobriety, pointing to his participation in the Calvary treatment program, and three hair follicle tests between December 2015 and May 2016 showing the absence of drug use. Father therefore contends that DCS failed to meet its b urden of proving that he has a history of chronic substance abuse that would continue for an indeterminate period and prevent him from being able to parent the child. 4 Notwithstanding Father’s efforts , we conclude that reasonable evidence supports the court’s ruling

. ¶10 Contrary to Father’s suggestion, § 8

– 533(B)(3) does not “require that the parent be found unable to discharge any parental responsibilities but rather that the parent be unable to discharge ‘the parental responsibilities.’” Maricopa Cty

. Juv. Action No. JS

– 5894 , 145 Ariz. 405, 408 (App. 1985). Additionally, a s the trier of fact, the juvenile court could properly consider the evidence of Father’s prior substance abuse when evaluating whether reasonable grounds exist to conclude an inabili ty to discharge parental responsibilities would continue for a prolonged and indeterminate period. Jennifer S. v. Dep’ t of Child Safety , 240 Ariz. 283, 288, ¶ 20 (App. 2016). That evidence includes the length and frequency of Father’s substance abuse, th e types of substances abused, prior efforts to maintain sobriety, and prior relapses

. Id . (internal quotations omitted).

¶11 Father acknowledged a decades

- long history of substance abuse dating from his teen years until the birth of the child and continuing
t hrough much of the d ependency proceedings. Father maintained that he was “clean and sober” at the time of the hearing and presented the three hair follicle tests

. However, Father did not submit a ny drug test results in the three months leading up to the severance hearing to demonstrate sobriety during th at critical time. Additionally, DCS records indicate

4 Father does not challenge any specific factual finding made by the juvenile court nor does he challenge the court’s legal conclusion that he has a history of chronic drug abuse.GUTHRIE S. v. DCS, A.S. Decision of the Cou rt

6 Father missed more than 4 0 required drug tests during the nearly two years between August 2014 and April 2016.

¶12 At different times in this proc eeding
, Father tested positive for various substances including heroin, cocaine, morphine, hydromorphone, codeine, oxycodone, oxy morpho ne, methamphetamine, and amphetamines

. Father admitted to frequent use of substances throughout the case. Father’s last urinalysis was taken in September 2015, after he completed the treatment program at Calvary, and it was positive for opi ates, cocaine, and heroin

. Although Father testified that he completed the aftercare program with Calvary and participated with a
ment or, he did not provide any confirming documentation, and the records DCS obtained from Calvary did not reflect such participation

. These facts support the caseworker’s opinion that Father was unable to provide the child a safe and sober environment, and t hat reasonable grounds existed to believe that Father’s condition would continue for a prolonged, uncertain period of time

. ¶13 Father’s temporary abstinence from drugs, as suggested by three hair follicle tests, does not outweigh his significant history o f abuse or his consistent inability to abstain during this case. See Raymond F., 224 Ariz. at 379, ¶ 29 ( explaining that when a parent consistently fail s to remedy substance abuse
, despite knowing the loss of a child is imminent, the parent has not overcome his or her dependence on drugs). The evidence in this record is sufficient to support the juvenile court’s findings that Father is unable to discharge his parental responsibilities due to chronic substance abuse and that th ere are reasonable grou nds to believe the condition will continue for a prolonged indeterminate period. 5

5 Because we conclude that reasonable evidence supports termination for chronic substance abuse, we need not address the out

- of

- home placement ground. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3 (App. 2002) ( stating if sufficient evidence supports any of the statutory
g rounds on which the court ordered severance, it is unnecessary to address arguments relating to the other grounds). Similarly, as Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s best interests finding, we need not address it.GUTHRIE S. v. DCS, A.S. Decision of the Cou rt

7 CONCLUSION

¶14 Based on the foregoing, t he juvenile court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to the child is affirmed

.