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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

INGRID G., Appellant, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, D.G., D.G., Appellees. 

No. 1 CA-JV 18-0329 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD531436 

The Honorable David King Udall, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By JoAnn Falgout, Paula S. Bickett

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 3-7-2019
INGRID G. v. DCS, et al. 

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge James P. Beene joined.

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

¶1 Ingrid G. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order

affirming its dependency finding as to her two children and denying her 

motion to reconsider and set aside that finding. She argues the court 

violated her right to due process by accelerating to a dependency 

adjudication hearing when she failed to appear at a pretrial conference and 

abused its discretion in finding no good cause for her failure to appear. We 

disagree and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Conrad G. (“Father”) are the natural parents of 

D.G. and D.G. (the “children”), born in 2007 and 2008.1 The Department of 

Child Safety (“DCS”) took the children into custody based on allegations of 

Mother’s neglect and filed a dependency petition in January 2018. Mother 

contested the allegations. 

¶3 Mother received and signed the standard Form 1 Notice to 

Parent in Dependency Action. The Form 1 Notice directed that Mother was 

“required to attend all [court] hearings” and warned the court might find 

she “waived [her] legal rights and admitted the allegations in the 

dependency petition” if she failed to attend later proceedings without good 

cause. It further warned that legal proceedings could go forward in her

absence and the court could find the children dependent based on the 

record and evidence presented. 

¶4 The superior court held a pretrial conference in April 2018. 

Mother appeared telephonically. The court continued the pretrial 

conference to July 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. The court also set the dependency 

adjudication hearing for August 23, 2018. The minute entry reflects that 

Mother received another Form 1 Notice “through her attorney.” 

 

1 Father is not party to this appeal.
INGRID G. v. DCS, et al. 

Decision of the Court

3 

¶5 Mother failed to appear at the continued pretrial conference

on July 20. DCS moved the superior court to proceed in her absence and 

immediately hold the dependency hearing. Mother’s attorney objected and 

asked for the dependency hearing to go forward on August 23 as originally 

planned. Mother’s attorney could not, however, explain Mother’s absence. 

After hearing from the parties, the court granted the motion to proceed, 

instructing counsel for DCS to “[g]o ahead.” DCS successfully moved, 

without objection, to admit a DCS report as evidence and for the court to 

take judicial notice of the dependency petition. The court adjudicated the 

children dependent but entered no findings. 

¶6 Two weeks later, Mother moved the superior court to 

reconsider and set aside its dependency finding. Mother alleged she was 

unable to attend the hearing for good cause. The day of the hearing, Mother 

went to urgent care after allegedly suffering from heat exhaustion. She 

provided documents from the urgent care visit, which indicated that 

Mother visited the facility at day’s end. She reported vomiting and 

dizziness, claiming that her condition began in the morning and never 

improved. She attributed the illness to her car’s broken air conditioner. Her 

vitals were taken at 4:52 p.m. She was then prescribed medication at 5:41 

p.m. and discharged at 5:42 p.m. A physician’s assistant wrote that Mother

should be excused because of illness. 

¶7 DCS and Father objected to Mother’s motion. The superior 

court denied the motion and affirmed its dependency finding. Mother 

timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶8 Mother challenges the superior court’s decision to accelerate 

the continued pretrial conference into a dependency adjudication hearing

because it violated her due process rights. Mother never objected on due 

process grounds in the superior court, requiring us to review only for 

fundamental error. Brenda D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 243 Ariz. 437, 447, ¶ 37 

(2018). Mother bears the burden to establish the error is both fundamental

and caused her prejudice. Id. at 447-48, ¶ 38. An error is prejudicial when 

it could have changed the decision of a reasonable fact-finder. Id. at 447-48, 

¶ 38. Mother never argues the alleged error was fundamental or prejudicial 

in her opening brief. She fails to meet her burden. Id. at 447-48, ¶¶ 38-39; 

see also State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, 354, ¶ 17 (App. 2008)
INGRID G. v. DCS, et al. 

Decision of the Court

4 

(argument waived when defendant failed to “argue the alleged error was 

fundamental”).2

¶9 Mother next argues the superior court erred when it found 

she failed to demonstrate good cause for her non-appearance at the 

continued pretrial conference. We review the finding for an abuse of 

discretion and will reverse only if the court’s decision was manifestly 

unreasonable. Adrian E. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 215 Ariz. 96, 101, ¶ 15 

(App. 2007). Mother must show her absence was from “mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” Christy A. v. Ariz. Dep’t of 

Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 299, 304, ¶ 16 (App. 2007). “Excusable neglect exists if 

the neglect or inadvertence is such as might be the act of a reasonably 

prudent person in the same circumstances.” Id. (quotation omitted). The 

juvenile court is in the best position to weigh the evidence and assess the 

parties’ credibility in making discretionary determinations. Pima Cty. 

Dependency Action No. 93511, 154 Ariz. 543, 546 (App. 1987). 

¶10 On this record, the superior court acted within its discretion 

and its decision was not unreasonable. See Christy A., 217 Ariz. at 305, ¶ 19. 

Mother was informed of the date and time of the pretrial conference, as well 

as the consequences of failing to appear. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 54(C)(2) 

(court may proceed in parent’s absence and adjudicate child dependent if, 

among other things, the parent had notice of the hearing and was warned 

of the consequences for failing to appear). She did not tell her attorney she 

was not coming, much less provide a reason for her absence. She never 

called or otherwise tried to inform the court. Given the consequences, a

reasonable parent would have made some minimal effort to inform her 

counsel or the court. What is more, Mother did not seek or receive 

treatment for her self-reported symptoms until day’s end—several hours 

after the hearing concluded. 

 

2 We ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on whether 

the superior court complied with Arizona Rule of Procedure for the 

Juvenile Court 54(C)(2). DCS conceded the court made no written findings

but argued that Mother waived the issue by failing to object to the superior 

court’s findings below. We agree. Cf. Aleise H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 

Ariz. 569, 573, ¶ 13 (App. 2018) (parent waived the argument that court did 

not make a best-interests finding). At a minimum, Mother could have 

raised the issue in a motion for reconsideration, motion for additional 

findings or motion to amend. 
INGRID G. v. DCS, et al. 

Decision of the Court

5 

CONCLUSION

¶11 We affirm.