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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

AMBER B., JODY B., Appellants,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, I.B., E.B., A.B., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 21-0077

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD36780

The Honorable Julie Ann Mata, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Ed Johnson, PLLC, Peoria

By Edward D. Johnson

Counsel for Appellant Amber B.

Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant Jody B.

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Amanda Adams

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 7-27-2021
AMBER B., JODY B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Amber B. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order 

terminating her parental rights to her daughters A.B., E.B., and I.B. (“the 

children”). Jody B. (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to A.B. and E.B. For the following reasons, 

we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In December 2018, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) 

received a report about the living conditions at the children’s maternal 

grandmother’s home, where the children lived with Mother and Father. 

DCS investigated and found animal feces, garbage, and rotting food in the 

home. There were piles of clothing, trash, and furniture stacked to the 

ceiling which posed a hazard of falling on the children. The investigator 

observed dangerous items within the children’s reach, including pill and 

alcohol bottles, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, medication, a flask, sharp 

objects, buckets of water which posed a drowning threat, and wires and 

cords. The investigator further observed two-year-old A.B. walking 

barefoot through the animal feces. Although A.B. was a toddler, she was 

still primarily bottle-fed, and her nutrition came mostly from milk. Mother 

allowed maternal grandmother to care for the children while the 

grandmother was under the influence of marijuana, which she told DCS she 

used daily to “control her seven personalities.”

¶3 DCS removed the children from the home and filed a 

dependency petition. At the time of the removal, the children had bedbug 

bites. E.B. and I.B. disclosed witnessing domestic violence between 

maternal grandmother and her friend. They reported they did not have 

enough food to eat, and that Mother and Father used marijuana. Mother 

told DCS the children were “slow” and that E.B. was on the autism 

spectrum, but she had never sought a professional diagnosis. A.B. and E.B. 

were later diagnosed with speech delays; E.B. was diagnosed with ADHD

and was placed on an individualized education plan for developmental 
AMBER B., JODY B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

delay. Mother told DCS she had a history of domestic violence with Father 

and had been sexually abused by him. Mother told DCS that she last used 

marijuana a month before the investigation and had not used 

methamphetamines for six years. Father told DCS he had last used 

methamphetamines a year before the investigation and had not used 

marijuana in five years. He acknowledged a history of domestic violence.

¶4 In February 2019, the superior court found the children were 

dependent. DCS instructed Mother and Father that before they could 

reunify with the children, they needed to provide a safe home for them, 

address their domestic violence problem, demonstrate that they could 

protect the children, meet their needs, and provide appropriate 

supervision.

¶5 DCS offered Mother and Father reunification services, 

including urinalysis testing, hair follicle testing, parent-aide services, caseaide services, visitation, individual counseling, psychological evaluations, 

psychiatric evaluation (Mother), substance abuse treatment (Father), 

transportation, case management services, and multiple referrals to Family 

Involvement Center for assistance with finding safe housing and for 

parenting classes and support.

¶6 Mother underwent a psychological evaluation with Dr. James 

S. Thal in March 2019. Mother denied that maternal grandmother’s home 

had been in poor condition and did not understand why DCS had removed 

the children. Mother described maternal grandmother as having multiple 

personalities, including some that were “quite disturbing” or violent. 

Although the grandmother regularly had violent outbursts and could “flip 

out” and curse at the children at any time, Mother was not concerned about 

the children being around her. Mother denied that the children had ever 

been neglected or had witnessed domestic violence between herself and 

Father. Mother expressed a desire to divorce Father and told Dr. Thal that 

he was not involved in the children’s care. Mother was unable to identify 

the most critical necessities a parent must provide a child. She told Dr. Thal 

that she had been tormented by a demon that told her what to do.

¶7 Dr. Thal diagnosed Mother with an intellectual disability and 

an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Dr. Thal 

concluded that Mother’s mental deficiency made her unable to understand 

her parenting responsibilities. Dr. Thal opined that Mother’s prognosis for 

being able to demonstrate minimally adequate parenting skills in the 

foreseeable future was poor, and that a child in her care would be at risk for 
AMBER B., JODY B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

neglect. Dr. Thal concluded that Mother was unable to parent 

independently.

¶8 Father underwent a psychological evaluation with Dr. Thal in 

March 2019. Father told Dr. Thal that he was the “breadwinner” and 

Mother was solely responsible for the children’s care and would continue 

to be their full-time caregiver in the future. Dr. Thal gave Father a rule out 

diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and diagnosed him with 

stimulant use disorder (methamphetamines) in early remission and alcohol 

use disorder. Dr. Thal noted that Father shared Mother’s delusional 

thinking and also believed that a demon had been tormenting the family 

when they lived in Globe. Dr. Thal opined that a child would be at risk for 

neglect by Father if he were abusing alcohol and drugs and concluded that 

the prognosis for Father being able to demonstrate minimally adequate 

parenting skills in the future was “guarded.” Besides Father’s substance 

abuse, Dr. Thal found it “disturbing” that Father denied that grandmother’s 

home had been unhygienic and unsafe for the children. Dr. Thal was also 

concerned that Father did not recognize that Mother’s parenting skills were 

deficient. Dr. Thal noted that the “major concern” was that Father would 

likely be busy with work and delegate his parental responsibilities to 

Mother.

¶9 In October 2020, DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental 

rights to the children, and Father’s parental rights to A.B. and E.B., pursuant 

to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 8-533(B)(8)(c) (fifteen 

months’ out-of-home placement). As to Mother, DCS also moved to

terminate parental rights pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) (mental 

deficiency).

¶10 In February 2021, after a termination adjudication hearing, 

the superior court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights on the 

grounds alleged in the motion. The court found that termination was in the 

children’s best interests.

¶11 Mother and Father timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction 

pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶12 Under Arizona law, before the superior court may terminate 

parental rights it must find that the moving party has proven one or more 

of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. 

A.R.S. § 8-537(B). The court must also find by a preponderance of the 

evidence that termination is in the child’s best interests. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 
AMBER B., JODY B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22 (2005). We view the evidence and the reasonable 

inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to affirming the 

superior court’s termination order. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 

Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009). We will not reverse the superior court’s order 

unless reasonable evidence does not support the superior court’s factual 

findings. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 547, 549, ¶ 7 (App. 

2010).

¶13 Mother and Father both argue that insufficient evidence 

supported the superior court’s finding that termination was warranted 

under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). Neither parent challenges the superior court’s 

best interests finding. The superior court may terminate parental rights 

under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c) if DCS has made diligent reunification efforts, 

the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances causing the 

parent’s child to be in an out-of-home placement for fifteen months or 

longer, and “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.”

¶14 Here, the children had been in an out-of-home placement for 

more than two years when the superior court terminated Mother’s and 

Father’s parental rights. Father argues that he remedied the circumstances 

causing A.B. and E.B. to be in an out-of-home placement, and that there was

no evidence he would be unable to effectively parent them in the near 

future. Mother argues no reasonable evidence supported the superior 

court’s finding that she was unable to remedy the circumstances causing 

the children to be in an out-of-home placement and that DCS failed to make 

diligent efforts to provide her with appropriate reunification services.

¶15 DCS makes diligent efforts to provide reunification services 

when it provides a parent with the time and opportunity to participate in 

programs designed to help the parent become an effective parent. Maricopa 

Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353 (App. 1994). DCS need 

not provide “every conceivable service” or ensure that the parent actually 

participates in the services offered. Id. Nor is it required to provide a parent 

with unlimited time to take positive steps toward reunification. Maricopa 

Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 571, 577 (App. 1994). DCS is not 

required to undertake futile reunification efforts and is required to 

undertake only those measures with a reasonable prospect of success. Mary 

Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185, 192, ¶ 34 (App. 1999).

¶16 The record shows that DCS offered Mother case management 

services, urinalysis testing, mental health services, parenting classes 
AMBER B., JODY B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

6

through Family Involvement Center, supervised visitation, case-aide 

services, parent-aide services, and transportation. The superior court 

recited at length the evidence supporting its conclusion that clear and 

convincing evidence demonstrated that DCS had made diligent

reunification efforts but that those efforts proved unsuccessful. Sufficient 

evidence supported that determination.

¶17 In making a determination that a parent has been unable to 

remedy the circumstances causing the child to be in an out-of-home 

placement, we construe those circumstances to mean the circumstances 

existing at the time of the termination that prevented a parent from 

appropriately providing for the parent’s child. Marina P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of 

Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 326, 330, ¶ 22 (App. 2007); see also Donald W. v. Dep’t of 

Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 9, 17, ¶ 26 (App. 2019) (court must consider “both the 

origin [of the dependency] and any cause arising during the dependency”).

¶18 At the time of the termination adjudication hearing, Mother 

and Father had participated in many of the services DCS requested they 

participate in, including supervised visitation, drug testing, individual 

counseling, substance abuse treatment (Father) and psychological 

evaluations. Mother and Father also participated in some parenting classes 

but did not complete that service before the hearing.

¶19 Mother and Father participated in, but did not successfully 

complete, parent-aide services. The parent aide noted that Mother and 

Father allowed I.B. and E.B. to parent their younger sister. Father failed to 

consistently demonstrate adequate parenting skills and continued to 

believe that Mother could safely parent the children on her own. Mother 

failed to meet the children’s needs, had to be reminded to practice basic 

hygiene during visits, and failed to recognize safety threats to the children. 

At times, Mother would disassociate or “zone out” during visits.

¶20 After Mother and Father were unsuccessfully closed out of 

parent-aide services, DCS arranged for a case aide to supervise visits with 

the children. Mother and Father were inconsistent with attending visits, 

but when they did attend were unable to control the two younger children’s 

behaviors. The case aide reported that when Father attempted to discipline 

A.B. and E.B. Mother would remain seated and “continue[] with what she 

[was] occupied with.” Neither Father nor Mother demonstrated an ability 

to provide the children with a clear expectation of how they should behave, 

and they did not follow through with consequences for bad behavior.
AMBER B., JODY B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

7

¶21 The superior court found that Mother and Father had made 

some improvements, but ultimately found that their efforts were 

insufficient. Over the course of the more than two-year dependency, Father 

never demonstrated an understanding of Mother’s intellectual disability 

and her limitations as a caregiver. During the dependency, Mother and 

Father agreed to cooperate with a responsible adult who would need to be 

present when Father was at work to ensure the children’s needs were met

as part of an in-home safety plan, but they were unable to identify a suitable 

adult willing to fill that role. The DCS case manager testified that Father, 

who had not been involved in the children’s care, would likely permit 

Mother to parent the children without supervision, placing them at risk of 

neglect. Sufficient evidence supported the superior court’s determination 

that Mother and Father were unable to remedy the circumstances causing 

the children to be in an out-of-home placement for fifteen months or longer 

and that there was a substantial likelihood that they would not be capable 

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

future. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c).

¶22 Because we affirm the superior court’s termination of 

Mother’s parental rights to the children on out-of-home placement 

grounds, we need not consider her challenge to the alternate ground of 

mental deficiency. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, 

¶ 3 (App. 2002).

CONCLUSION

¶23 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s 

order terminating Mother’s parental rights to A.B., E.B., and I.B., and 

Father’s parental rights to A.B. and E.B.