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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOEL D., Appellant,

v.

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

No. 1 CA-JV 17-0011

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD 23237

The Honorable Jeanne M. Garcia, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Amber E. Pershon

Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety
JOEL D. v. DCS, A.D.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 In this appeal, the father of A.D., Joel D., challenges the 

juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights. He argues that the 

juvenile court erred in finding two statutory grounds for termination. 

Because reasonable evidence supports the juvenile court’s termination 

based on the fifteen months out-of-home placement ground under Arizona 

Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 8-533(B)(8)(c), we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 A.D. was born in August 2011. Father and Mother1 have a 

history of substance abuse and domestic violence. Previously, the court 

terminated parental rights to their two other children in common. Only 

A.D. is a party to this appeal.

¶3 In early February 2013, the Department of Child Services 

(“DCS”) conducted an investigation regarding allegations of domestic 

violence and substance abuse. The investigator determined that Father and 

Mother engaged in domestic violence while the child was present. DCS had

additional concerns about substance abuse by both parents. Accordingly,

DCS took temporary custody of A.D. and filed a dependency petition 

alleging neglect. 

¶4 Throughout 2013, DCS referred Father to various services

including drug testing, substance-abuse assessment and treatment, 

psychological evaluation, and parent aide services. Father’s participation, 

however, was minimal and sporadic. Father also continued to engage in 

acts of domestic violence and tested positive for methamphetamines and

opiates. At his initial intake for substance-abuse assessment, Father denied 

having issues with substance abuse. During his individual counseling 

sessions, Father also denied having issues with domestic violence, despite 

his fifteen-year documented history of domestic violence. 

 

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal.
JOEL D. v. DCS, A.D.

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 In late 2013 and early 2014, Father submitted to regular drug 

testing and substance abuse treatment as well as a psychological evaluation.

A treatment provider, however, reported Father was still engaging in 

“denial, minimalizing, and blaming” behaviors. Service providers also had

concerns Father was not fully attentive in parenting classes. 

¶6 In March 2015, A.D. was placed into Father’s home in a 

reunification effort. Shortly after, Father missed drug tests, brought an 

inappropriate caregiver into the home, and continued to engage in 

unhealthy domestic relationships. In April 2015, the juvenile court again 

removed A.D. from the father’s custody. Following the failed reunification, 

Father continued to engage in inappropriate parenting behavior and failed 

to achieve all of his treatment goals.

¶7 In 2016, DCS filed a motion for the termination of Father’s 

parental rights based on the statutory grounds of mental illness, nine 

months out-of-home placement, and fifteen months out-of-homeplacement. The juvenile court held a contested severance hearing and 

terminated on the grounds of mental illness and fifteen months out-ofhome placement. The court also found that termination was in A.D.’s best 

interests. The juvenile court entered an order terminating Father’s parental 

rights. Father timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶8 Father argues the juvenile court erred in finding there was 

clear and convincing evidence supporting termination based on fifteen 

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

2 Viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the termination order, see

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

(citations omitted), we find no error.

¶9 Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as 

they see fit, but that right is not absolute. Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 

211 Ariz. 76, 78, ¶ 6 (App. 2005) (citations omitted). To justify the severance 

of parental rights, the juvenile court must find at least one statutory ground 

by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Additionally, the juvenile court must 

find by a preponderance of the evidence that the severance of parental 

rights is in the child’s best interest. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288, 

¶ 42 (2005). We do not reweigh the evidence, but, rather, we determine 

 

2 Father does not dispute that termination is in A.D.’s best interests.
JOEL D. v. DCS, A.D.

Decision of the Court

4

whether the termination order is supported by reasonable evidence. Jordan 

C., 223 Ariz. at 93, ¶ 18 (citation omitted).

¶10 Termination based on out-of-home placement for a 

cumulative period of fifteen months or longer requires clear and convincing 

evidence that: (1) the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances 

that caused the out-of-home placement, and (2) there is a substantial 

likelihood 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)(c).

¶11 Reasonable evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings

that Father had been unable to remedy the circumstances that caused A.D.’s 

out-of-home placement and there was a substantial likelihood Father 

would not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and 

control in the near future. At the time of the termination hearing, A.D. had 

been in DCS’s care for a cumulative period of over three and a half years.

Although Father had made progress and actively participated in various 

services, Father had a pattern of dishonesty with service providers and 

continued to engage in unhealthy domestic relationships. Father continued 

to select inappropriate caregivers and did not demonstrate the ability to 

consistently parent A.D. safely and effectively.

¶12 Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in terminating 

Father’s parental rights to A.D. under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). Therefore, we 

need not address Father’s argument that the juvenile court erred in 

terminating his parental rights based on mental illness under A.R.S. 

§ 8-533(B)(3). See Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 251, 

¶ 27 (2000) (if appellate court affirms one statutory basis, it need not address 

other statutory bases for termination).
JOEL D. v. DCS, A.D.

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶13 For the reasons discussed, we affirm the juvenile court’s order 

terminating Father’s parental rights to A.D.