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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CANDACE G., Appellant,

v.

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

No. 1 CA-JV 21-0152

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD 22142

The Honorable Robert I. Brooks, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek, Scottsdale

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jennifer R. Blum

Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety

FILED 10-19-2021
CANDACE G. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Maurice Portley1 joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Candace G. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her 

parental rights to three of her children based on the grounds of chronic 

substance abuse and six- and nine-months’ time-in-care.

2 See A.R.S. § 8-

533(B)(3), (8). Because the termination order is supported by reasonable 

evidence in the record, we affirm. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 

Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009).

BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother is the biological parent of Armando, born in 2014, 

Adriana, born in 2017, and Arturo, born in 2019.

3 Mother also has five other 

children who are not involved in this appeal but have all been adjudicated

dependent regarding Mother based on her substance abuse and neglect

over the past 11 years. 

¶3 In October 2019, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) 

received a report that Mother tested positive for amphetamine and 

methamphetamine both at a prenatal appointment while pregnant with 

Arturo and shortly after Arturo’s birth. After Mother violated a DCS 

“present danger plan,” DCS filed a dependency petition. 

¶4 In March 2020, the superior court found the children 

dependent and adopted a family reunification case plan. DCS provided 

Mother with various rehabilitative and reunification services, but she failed 

to successfully complete any of the services. By October 2020, she had 

1 The Honorable Maurice Portley, Retired Judge of the Court of 

Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant 

to Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution.

2 The children’s biological father is not party to this appeal.

3 Pseudonyms are used for the children to protect their identity.
CANDACE G. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

completed only four substance-abuse tests—each positive for THC and two 

were positive for methamphetamine. 

¶5 In October 2020, the court changed the case plan to severance 

and adoption. The following month, DCS filed a motion to terminate 

Mother’s parental rights to Adriana and Arturo on the six-months’ time-incare ground and to Armando, Adriana, and Arturo on the statutory 

grounds of chronic substance abuse and nine-months’ time-in-care. See 

A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), (8). With DCS’s motion pending, Mother tested 

positive for methamphetamine three more times—the last time in January 

2021, shortly before the termination adjudication. 

¶6 After the contested termination adjudication in April 2021, 

the superior court found that Mother’s significant history of substance 

abuse, her failure to successfully complete the offered services, and her 

continued use of methamphetamine provided clear and convincing 

evidence to support the statutory grounds for termination. The court also 

found that it would be in the children’s best interests to terminate Mother’s 

parental rights and proceeded to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the 

children. Mother timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶7 Mother argues the superior court erred in finding DCS 

proved by clear and convincing evidence the chronic substance-abuse 

ground under A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(3).

4 In support of her argument, Mother 

maintains she is not a continuous methamphetamine user, that she 

demonstrated a lengthy period of sobriety prior to Arturo’s birth, that she 

self-referred for services to address her substance-abuse issues, and that she 

now knows the triggers that prompt her relapses. Mother argues that she

has an action plan to address her triggers and avoid relapsing.

Additionally, Mother asserts she was ready and prepared to resume 

custody of the children because she had stable employment and housing 

4 Mother also argues the superior court erred by finding the six-month 

and nine-month out-of-home placement grounds under A.R.S. § 8–

533(B)(8)(a) and (b). Because we affirm on the chronic substance abuse 

ground, we will not address these arguments. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of 

Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3 (App. 2002). (“If clear and convincing 

evidence supports any one of the statutory grounds on which the . . . court 

ordered severance, we need not address claims pertaining to the other 

grounds.”).
CANDACE G. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

and had completed courses in parenting. Mother argues that “[u]nder these 

circumstances,” DCS failed to meet its burden of proof. 

¶8 As the trier of fact in a termination proceeding, the superior 

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 therefore view 

the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most 

favorable to sustaining the court’s decision. Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at 278, ¶ 13. 

We do not reweigh the evidence. See Lashonda M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 

210 Ariz. 77, 81, ¶ 13 (App. 2005). “[W]e will affirm a termination order that 

is supported by reasonable evidence.” Jordan C., 223 Ariz. at 93, ¶ 18.

¶9 “Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, 

custody, and management of their children.” Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 

at 284, ¶ 24 (2005) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Michael 

J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 248, ¶ 11 (2000)). However, those

fundamental rights are not absolute. Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 284, ¶ 24. A court 

may sever those rights if it finds one of the statutory grounds for severance 

by clear and convincing evidence and that severance is in the child’s best 

interests by a preponderance of the evidence.

5 See A.R.S. §§ 8–533(B), 

–537(B); Kent K., 210 Ariz at 281–82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41.

¶10 The superior court may terminate parental rights under 

A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) when “the parent is unable to discharge parental 

responsibilities” because of her history of chronic substance abuse “and 

there are reasonable grounds to believe that the condition will continue for 

a prolonged indeterminate period.”6 Chronic substance abuse is longlasting but need not necessarily be constant abuse of drugs. Raymond F. v. 

Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 377, ¶ 16 (App. 2010). Generally, a 

parent’s “temporary abstinence from drugs and alcohol does not outweigh 

5 Mother does not contest the superior court’s best-interests finding, 

which is supported by the record.

6 To terminate parental rights on the chronic substance abuse ground, 

the superior court “must also have found that [DCS] had made reasonable 

efforts to reunify the family or that such efforts would have been futile.”

Jennifer G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 450, 453, ¶ 12 (App. 2005).

Mother does not challenge the court’s finding that DCS made reasonable 

reunification efforts and has therefore waived the argument. See State v. 

Watson, 198 Ariz. 48, 51, ¶ 4 (App. 2000) (declining to address argument not 

raised in opening brief).
CANDACE G. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

[her] significant history of abuse or [her] consistent inability to abstain 

during [the] case.” Id. at 379, ¶ 29.

¶11 Here, the superior court found that because of Mother’s drug 

abuse, she is unable to provide safe and stable housing or appropriate 

supervision for the children. The court also found Mother has used 

methamphetamine for approximately 14 years and continues to do so. The 

court noted that despite various periods of sobriety, Mother’s “positive 

tests throughout this case demonstrate ongoing chronic use.” The court 

found Mother’s chronic drug abuse would “continue for a prolonged and 

indeterminate period due to [her] lack of current sobriety, failure to take 

advantage of services, and lack of insight into [her] need for treatment.” The

court held DCS proved the chronic substance-abuse ground for termination

by clear and convincing evidence. 

¶12 Reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s 

termination order. Mother concedes she has a long history of substance 

abuse—particularly of methamphetamine—which continued throughout 

the dependency and termination proceedings. Mother is unable to 

discharge her parental responsibilities because her continued substance 

abuse significantly impairs her ability to parent, to identify and meet the 

differing needs of her children, and to recognize safety threats to them.

Mother’s substance abuse has led to unstable income and housing, to at 

least one of her children being substance-exposed at home, and to her 

failure to visit or interact with the three children.

¶13 The record also supports the superior court’s finding that 

Mother’s substance abuse will continue for a prolonged, indeterminate 

period. Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from three substance-abuse 

counseling programs. She did not show 30 days of sobriety (and, as a result, 

never completed a psychological evaluation), and tested positive for 

methamphetamine multiple times while her children were in DCS’s care—

most recently, two months before the termination hearing. A parent’s 

failure to remedy her substance-abuse issues when faced with the imminent 

loss of a child is evidence that she has not overcome her dependence on the 

substance. See Raymond F., 224 Ariz. at 379, ¶ 29. Further, Mother’s 

argument that she knows what triggers her relapses and has a plan of action 

to address them is belied by the record. Mother tested positive for

methamphetamine three times after the conclusion of her therapy in 

September 2020, and she attended only two out of five scheduled 

substance-abuse treatment-sessions in February 2021. The court did not err

by finding DCS proved the chronic substance-abuse ground by clear and 

convincing evidence.
CANDACE G. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm the superior court’s termination of Mother’s 

parental rights to Armando, Adriana, and Arturo.