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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHARLES H., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, J.B., A.B., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 19-0326 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD528730

The Honorable Karen L. O’Connor, Judge (Retired)

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Doriane F. Neaverth

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 4-30-2020
CHARLES H. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann

joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Charles H. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to his children. For the following reasons, 

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Katrina B. (“Mother”)1 have two children, J.B., 

born in 2013, and A.B., born in 2016. In May 2015, before A.B. was born, the 

Department of Child Safety removed J.B. from Mother’s and Father’s care

and petitioned for a dependency alleging substance abuse and neglect. J.B. 

was adjudicated dependent and the Department offered Mother and Father 

reunification services that only Father completed. The dependency was 

dismissed, and Father was awarded sole legal decision-making and 

physical custody of J.B. 

¶3 After the first dependency action, Mother and Father 

continued to use drugs and Father left the children alone in Mother’s care 

while he was at work. Father also engaged in domestic violence toward 

Mother in front of the children. In February 2018, the Department 

petitioned for dependency alleging, among other things, substance abuse 

and neglect by Father. The Department also took custody of the children

pursuant to court order.

¶4 After learning that the Department was going to take custody 

of their children, Mother and Father left for California. The Department 

took custody of the children in California in April 2018. The children were 

placed in the care of their maternal grandmother, a kinship licensed foster 

home. 

1 Mother’s parental rights were also terminated, but she is not a party 

to this appeal.
CHARLES H. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 Father was referred to TASC and Physician Services, Inc. for 

substance abuse testing in April 2018. Father participated in substance 

abuse testing once in May 2018 but did not participate again until 

September 2018. Between May 2018 and January 2019, Father tested seven

times and tested positive for marijuana or methamphetamine each time.

During this time, Father either failed to call in or failed to appear for testing

more than 200 times. 

¶6 The Department also referred Father to TERROS in May 2018 

for substance abuse treatment. Father did not participate, and the referral

was closed in October 2018. Father was referred to TERROS again in 

November 2018. Father completed the intake and was referred for intensive 

outpatient treatment. He was diagnosed with alcohol dependency disorder

and informed that he needed to demonstrate sobriety from all substances, 

including alcohol, for six months. He was resistant and noncompliant and 

did not engage or actively participate in group sessions. He was closed out 

unsuccessfully in February 2019.

¶7 In August 2018, the juvenile court adjudicated the children 

dependent. That same month, Father was referred for a parent-aide. Father

failed to communicate and cancelled several scheduled visits and skills 

sessions. He was closed out unsuccessfully in March 2019. Since then, 

Father participated in supervised visitation. Father was referred to 

individual counseling in September 2018, and he attended all scheduled 

sessions from October 2018 to January 2019. 

¶8 In February 2019, Father self-referred to Crossroads for 

substance abuse treatment and earned a certificate completing the “Right 

Track Program” in March 2019. Father started testing negative for drugs in 

February 2019 but tested positive for marijuana twice in March 2019. Father 

tested negative for drugs from the end of March to June 2019 but failed to 

test in July and August 2019. Father also presumptively tested positive for 

alcohol in September 2019.

¶9 Father was referred to TERROS for substance abuse treatment 

a third time in April 2019. In May 2019, he completed an intake and was 

referred to the standard out-patient program. He completed that program 

and, at the time of the termination adjudication, was in the recovery and 

maintenance program.

¶10 Given a lack of progress, in April and May 2019, the court 

changed the case plan to severance and adoption. In May 2019, the 

Department moved to terminate Father’s parental rights based on nine and 
CHARLES H. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

15 months’ out-of-home placement and chronic substance abuse. The 

juvenile court held a termination hearing in September 2019. A Department 

case manager testified that the Department still had concerns about Father’s 

substance abuse and that termination of his parental rights was in the 

children’s best interests. Mother also testified that Father would go from 

being clean to using substances and that the children would not be safe in 

his care. 

¶11 The juvenile court terminated Father’s parental rights to J.B. 

and A.B. under A.R.S. § 8–533 (B)(8)(a), out-of-home placement for nine 

months; (B)(8)(b), out-of-home placement for 15 months; and (B)(3), chronic 

substance abuse. Father timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶12 Father challenges the juvenile court’s finding that he 

substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy the circumstances that 

caused his children to be in an out-of-home placement for nine months. A 

juvenile court’s termination decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 

Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47 ¶ 8 (App. 2004). 

“When the statutory grounds for termination are challenged, we will affirm 

a termination order unless we must say as a matter of law that no one could 

reasonably find the evidence supporting statutory grounds for termination 

to be clear and convincing.” Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 9, 

14 ¶ 25 (App. 2019) (quoting Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 

86, 93 ¶ 18 (App. 2009)). Because the juvenile court “is in the best position 

to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of 

witnesses, and resolve disputed facts,” Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 

209 Ariz. 332, 334 ¶ 4 (App. 2004), we view the evidence and draw all 

reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

court’s decision, Jordan C., 223 Ariz. at 93 ¶ 18.

¶13 To terminate parental rights, the juvenile court must find by 

clear and convincing evidence the existence of at least one statutory ground 

for termination and find by a preponderance of the evidence that 

termination is in the child’s best interests. Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 

240 Ariz. 282, 286 ¶ 15 (App. 2016). Parental rights may be terminated when

the child has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative period of 

nine months or longer and the parent has substantially neglected or wilfully 

refused to remedy the circumstances that caused the child to be in an 

out-of-home placement. A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(8)(a).
CHARLES H. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

¶14 Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

determination that Father substantially neglected or wilfully refused to 

remedy the circumstances that caused his children to be in an out-of-home 

placement. One of the circumstances that caused the children to be placed 

in an out-of-home placement was Father’s substance abuse. The 

Department placed the children with their maternal grandmother in April 

2018 and repeatedly offered Father substance abuse treatment and testing 

starting in April and May 2018. Father participated in drug testing only 

seven times between May 2018 and January 2019 and he tested positive for 

either marijuana or methamphetamine each time. He also either failed to 

call in or appear for drug testing during that nine-month period more than 

200 times. Father was also closed out of substance abuse treatment with 

TERROS once in October 2018 and again in February 2019 for failing to 

participate. As a result, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

determination that Father substantially neglected or wilfully refused to 

remedy his substance abuse. Therefore, the juvenile court did not err by 

terminating Father’s parental rights to J.B. and A.B. for nine months 

out-of-home placement under A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(8)(a).

¶15 Father argues that he participated in drug testing, completed 

individual counseling, and self-referred to Crossroads in February 2019 for 

substance abuse treatment. A finding of substantial or wilful neglect is 

within the discretion of the juvenile court when a parent makes sporadic, 

aborted attempts to remedy the situation. Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. 

JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 571, 576 (App. 1994). Even though Father made some

attempts to participate in TERROS his attempts were sporadic during the 

first ten months of the children’s out-of-home placement and he was closed 

out of the service twice. Likewise, Father’s drug testing was sporadic, and 

at times non-existent for extended periods, including from May 2018 to 

January 2019. And when Father did test during that period, he tested 

positive for either marijuana or methamphetamine.

¶16 And while Father self-referred to Crossroads for substance 

abuse treatment in February 2019, he continued to test positive for 

marijuana in March 2019. He also failed to participate in drug testing in July 

and August 2019, and had a presumptive positive for alcohol in September 

2019, despite knowing he had a problem with alcohol and that he was 

supposed to maintain sobriety. Even though Father eventually participated 

in reunification services and completed TERROS in mid-2019, these efforts 

came too late. See id. at 577. Therefore, the juvenile court did not err by 
CHARLES H. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

6

terminating Father’s parental rights to J.B. and A.B. for out-of-home 

placement for nine months under A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(8)(a).2

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

2 Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s finding that 

termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the children

and the record supports that finding. We also need not consider the 

remaining termination grounds. See Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 

Ariz. 246, 251 ¶ 27 (2000).