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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

EBERARDO L., Appellant,

v.

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

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0108 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD35642

The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

David W. Bell Attorney at Law, Higley

By David W. Bell

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Emily M. Stokes

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 8-18-2020
EBERARDO L. v. DCS, A.A.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Eberardo L. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to A.A. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Krystle L. (“Mother”)1 had one child together, 

A.A., who was born substance-exposed in March 2018. At the time of A.A.’s 

birth, Father was in prison on a parole violation from a conviction of 

conspiracy to transport methamphetamine. The Department of Child Safety 

removed A.A. from Mother’s home in August 2018, after being adjudicated 

dependent. Father was released from prison that same month. A.A. was

later adjudicated dependent as to Father in October 2018, after he failed to 

appear at the dependency hearing.

¶3 After Father was released from prison, the Department’s case

manager met with him and told him about the case and the services he 

needed to complete. Father was referred to TASC in September 2018 to 

complete drug testing. He submitted to only one test in 2018 that was

positive for marijuana. He tested three times in 2019 and the results were 

all negative. He then tested six times in 2020, with one positive test for 

methamphetamine one month before trial. He also had a prior history of 

substance abuse, testing positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and 

marijuana multiple times in 2016 and 2017.

¶4 Father was referred for supervised visitation with A.A. in 

September 2018. He attended visits with A.A. in October and November 

2018. At one of his November 2018 visits, Father became agitated when A.A. 

started to cry. He attempted to leave the visitation center with A.A. to take 

her to the hospital, telling the case aide that A.A. “is being raped.” The case 

aide called the police, who told Father to leave. As a result, Father’s 

supervised visitation was suspended. He was told that his supervised 

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal.
EBERARDO L. v. DCS, A.A.

Decision of the Court

3

visitation would be reinstated if he completed random drug testing and had

a psychological evaluation. The Department psychologist recommended 

that Father not be referred for a psychological evaluation until after he 

demonstrated sobriety through drug testing. The psychologist was 

concerned that Father’s substance abuse could skew the results of a 

psychological evaluation. After December 2018, the Department lost 

contact with Father until June 2019. The Department attempted several 

“parent locates” but was unable to locate him.

¶5 Father was referred for substance abuse counseling through 

TERROS in September 2018 and November 2018, but the referrals were 

closed for lack of communication. The Department referred Father to 

TERROS again in December 2019. Father scheduled an intake appointment 

with TERROS and, during the intake, denied having any history of 

substance abuse. He tested negative for drugs at the intake meeting and, as 

a result, he was not recommended for services with TERROS. 

¶6 Father was arrested in January 2019 for possession of a 

dangerous drug and was in jail until June 2019. After he was released, he

appeared at Mother’s court hearing on June 7, 2019, but was told to return

on July 25, 2019, to attend his scheduled hearing. The Department lost 

contact with Father again from June 2019 until December 2019. Father failed 

to appear at his July 2019 and August 2019 court hearings. In October 2019, 

Father was admitted to a hospital with psychiatric symptoms. He was 

diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder and treated with psychotropic 

medication. The hospital referred Father to TERROS to see a doctor for 

follow-up treatment after his release in November 2019. 

¶7 In December 2019, the Department moved to terminate 

Father’s parental rights, alleging the six, nine, and fifteen months’ 

out-of-home placement grounds defined in A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(8)(a), (b), and 

(c). The Department also alleged that Father abandoned A.A. as defined in 

A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(1). In the meantime, Father completed two parenting 

classes in February 2020. 

¶8 At a March 2020 termination hearing, Father denied that he 

ever used methamphetamine. He only admitted that he used marijuana but 

said that he had a medical marijuana card. He agreed that he could not 

parent his daughter if he used methamphetamine. He also admitted that he 

had not received any new drug treatment since he was released from prison 

in August 2018. He testified that he was not employed but planned to find 

employment. He further testified that at some point down the road, he 
EBERARDO L. v. DCS, A.A.

Decision of the Court

4

would be able to care for A.A. and that he planned to work with the 

Department and continue doing services. 

¶9 The case manager testified that the Department still had 

concerns about Father’s substance abuse because Father was not honest 

about his substance abuse history with TERROS, had not engaged in 

consistent drug testing, and had tested positive for methamphetamine one 

month before the hearing. She also testified that Father had never discussed 

his marijuana use with her or disclosed a medical marijuana card to her.

She further testified that Father needed to demonstrate sobriety before he 

could receive a psychological evaluation. She testified that Father did not 

maintain a normal parent-child relationship with A.A. and that between 

November 2018 and December 2019, he never called A.A., never sent her 

letters, cards, or gifts, and never provided support for her. 

¶10 The case manager testified that A.A. was first placed with her 

maternal great aunt in August 2018, but after Father continued to harass the 

maternal great aunt by requesting to see A.A. outside supervised visitation, 

and showing up at her home, A.A. was moved to her maternal uncle’s home 

in February 2019. The case manager opined that termination of Father’s 

parental rights was in A.A.’s best interests because A.A. had been involved 

with the Department for two years and severance would provide stability 

and permanency. 

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

under the six and fifteen months’ out-of-home placement grounds. See

A.R.S § 8–533 (B)(8)(b), (c). The court found that the Department made 

diligent efforts to provide Father services, including supervised visitation, 

drug testing, substance abuse treatment, and parenting classes. The court 

also found that Father substantially neglected or willfully refused to 

remedy the circumstances that caused A.A.’s out-of-home placement 

because he did not communicate with the Department, he was incarcerated 

for significant periods of time, and he did not participate in the services 

offered until just a few months before the termination hearing. The court 

also found that termination was in A.A.’s best interests because she was in 

an out-of-home placement for over 18 months, resided in a kinship 

placement, would have permanency and stability, and Father had almost 

no bond with her. Father timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

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

Department made diligent efforts to provide him reunification services
EBERARDO L. v. DCS, A.A.

Decision of the Court

5

because it failed to provide him with mental health services. We review a 

juvenile court’s termination order for an abuse of discretion. E.R. v. Dep’t of 

Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 56, 58 ¶ 9 (App. 2015). We will affirm an order 

terminating parental rights if reasonable evidence supports the order. 

Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93 ¶ 18 (App. 2009). To 

terminate parental rights, a court must find by clear and convincing 

evidence that at least one of the statutory grounds in A.R.S. § 8–533 has been 

proven and must 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). “The juvenile court, as the trier of fact in a termination 

proceeding, is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the 

parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and make appropriate findings.”

Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280 ¶ 4 (App. 2002).

¶13 A juvenile court may terminate a parent’s parental rights 

when a child has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total 

period of at least fifteen months (or six months if the child is under 3), when 

the Department has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate 

reunification services, when the parent has substantially neglected or 

willfully refused to remedy the circumstances that caused the placement, 

and when a substantial likelihood exists that the parent “will not be capable 

of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near 

future.” A.R.S § 8–533(B)(8)(b), (c). While the Department must provide 

reunification services to a parent with the time and opportunity to 

participate in programs designed to help him become an effective parent, 

the Department is not required to provide every conceivable service. 

Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231, 235 ¶¶ 14–15 (App. 

2011).

¶14 Reasonable evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding 

that the Department made diligent efforts to provide reunification services 

to Father. A.A. was placed in an out-of-home placement because of, among 

other things, Father’s substance abuse issues. The Department referred 

Father for substance abuse counseling, random drug testing, and 

supervised visitation. The Department referred him for substance abuse 

counseling twice in 2018. And when Father failed to communicate with the 

Department, it made multiple attempts to locate him but was unable to 

because of his incarceration from January through June 2019 on possession 

of dangerous drug charges.

¶15 Father failed to keep in contact with the Department and 

failed to appear at his court hearings in July and August 2019. And when 

the Department referred him to TERROS for a third time in December 2019, 
EBERARDO L. v. DCS, A.A.

Decision of the Court

6

he denied any history of substance abuse, despite his positive drug test 

results and criminal history involving drugs. He also sporadically

participated in random drug testing and submitted a positive drug test for 

marijuana in October 2018 and methamphetamine in February 2020.

¶16 Father further claims that the Department should have 

referred him for a psychological evaluation. Even though the Department 

had concerns about Father’s mental health, the Department was not 

required to offer him every conceivable service. See Christina G., 227 Ariz. 

at 235 ¶ 15. Here, the case manager consulted with the Department’s 

psychologist, who recommended that Father complete drug treatment and 

drug testing first to prevent his psychological evaluation from being 

skewed. Father did not consistently participate in random drug testing and

did not disclose his previous substance abuse history to TERROS. Had he

complied with drug testing and provided accurate information at his 

TERROS assessment, the Department would have referred him for a 

psychological evaluation. Even so, Father received treatment for his mental 

health when he was diagnosed and treated during his hospitalization in 

2019. After receiving treatment for his mental health diagnosis, Father still 

failed to remedy the circumstances that caused A.A.’s out-of-home 

placement when he tested positive for methamphetamine one month before 

the termination hearing.2 Therefore, Father’s argument fails and the 

juvenile court correctly found that the Department made diligent efforts to 

offer him appropriate reunification services.

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

2 We need not address the juvenile court’s best interests findings 

because Father does not challenge them on appeal.