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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.M.

No. 1 CA-JV 23-0037 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD30235

The Honorable Christopher Whitten, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Ed Johnson, PLLC, Peoria

By Edward D. Johnson

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Bailey Leo

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

FILED 8-08-2023
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.M.

Decision of the Court

2

¶1 Krystal K. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental 

rights to N.M. (“the child”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Jesse M. (“Father”) are the biological parents of 

the child, who was born substance-exposed to methamphetamine and 

amphetamines in June 2021.1 Mother also tested positive for amphetamines 

and admitted using methamphetamine the day of the child’s birth, stating, 

“I know for sure that is what induced my labor.”

¶3 Soon after the child’s birth, the Department of Child Safety 

(“DCS”) filed a dependency petition based on Mother’s failure to provide 

proper and effective parental care and control due to her substance abuse. 

DCS also alleged that Mother’s eighteen-year substance abuse history had 

contributed to the termination of her parental rights to her other two 

children in 2016. In July 2021, DCS placed the child—who had spent fortythree days in the hospital—with her paternal cousins, who were willing to 

adopt her.

¶4 Mother pled no contest to the allegations in the dependency 

petition. In support of the family reunification case plan, DCS offered 

Mother substance abuse treatment, drug testing, parenting classes, 

transportation, case management, and supervised visitation, but she 

participated in services only sporadically.

¶5 Mother began inpatient substance abuse treatment in July 

2021 but checked out the same day, and she missed her intake appointment 

for a different inpatient program a few weeks later. Mother completed 

intake for outpatient treatment in September 2021, then failed to participate

consistently. At the outpatient provider’s recommendation, Mother 

checked into another inpatient treatment facility, but she left during the 

treatment planning process. All told, Mother never spent more than four 

days in inpatient treatment before checking herself out.

¶6 Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and 

amphetamines in July, September, October, and November 2021, and then 

stopped submitting to drug tests. In July 2022, DCS moved to terminate 

Mother’s parental rights based on chronic substance abuse and six- and 

nine-months out-of-home placement grounds. 

1 Although the superior court also terminated Father’s parental rights, 

he is not a party to this appeal.
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.M.

Decision of the Court

3

¶7 Meanwhile, in June 2022, Mother self-referred to services 

offered by SAGE and began substance abuse and parenting classes. During 

the next six months, Mother completed ten group sessions in both areas, 

and in December 2022, she was successfully discharged from the program.

However, despite the ongoing requirement that she test twice weekly, 

Mother did not submit to any drug tests while participating in these classes,

and she tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines the same 

month she graduated. Although Mother testified that she has been sober 

since December 3, 2022, she failed to submit to any drug tests between her

positive test in late December 2022 and the termination hearing five weeks 

later. Throughout DCS’ involvement with the child, Mother submitted to 

drug testing only eight times, testing negative just once. 

¶8 On February 1, 2023, the superior court held the termination 

hearing. After taking the matter under advisement, the court severed 

Mother’s parental rights to the child on each alleged ground.

¶9 We have jurisdiction over Mother’s timely appeal under 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes 

(“A.R.S.”) sections 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and -2101(A)(1), and Rule 601

of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court.

DISCUSSION

I. Chronic Abuse of Dangerous Drugs or Controlled Substances

¶10 Mother argues that the court disregarded evidence that she 

remedied her substance abuse.

¶11 To terminate parental rights, a court must find clear and 

convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground in A.R.S. § 8-533(B)

and must find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the 

child’s best interests. See Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288, ¶ 41 (2005); 

Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 12 (2000). Because

the superior court “is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the 

parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts,” we 

will affirm an order terminating parental rights if it is supported by 

reasonable evidence. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93,

¶ 18 (App. 2009) (quoting Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 

334, ¶ 4 (App. 2004)).

¶12 The superior court may terminate parental rights under 

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

responsibilities because of . . . a history of chronic abuse of dangerous drugs, 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.M.

Decision of the Court

4

controlled substances or alcohol and there are reasonable grounds to 

believe that the condition will continue for a prolonged indeterminate 

period.”

¶13 A parent’s substance abuse “need not be constant to be 

considered chronic.” Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 

377, ¶ 16 (App. 2010). Abstinence in the period immediately preceding the 

termination hearing does not outweigh a significant history of drug abuse 

or inability to remain sober during much of the case. See Jennifer S. v. Dep’t 

of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 282, 288, ¶ 25 (App. 2016).

¶14 Mother essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence, 

something we will not do. See Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146, 

151, ¶ 18 (2018). Even accepting Mother’s self-reported weeks of sobriety 

preceding the termination hearing, reasonable evidence supports the 

superior court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s 

substance abuse is chronic and will likely continue for a prolonged 

indeterminate period. See Raymond F., 224 Ariz. at 378-79, ¶¶ 24–29 

(holding that there was reasonable evidence for the superior court to 

conclude the parent’s chronic drug use was likely to continue despite four 

months of negative drug tests leading up to the termination hearing). 

Mother’s substance abuse dates back many years, and she concedes she has 

“a lengthy history of abusing controlled substances, namely 

methamphetamines,” punctuated by brief intermittent periods of sobriety.

¶15 In 2015, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine, and 

she continued to use that drug during her prior dependency, during her 

pregnancy with the child, and throughout 2021, as evidenced by the 

positive tests she submitted before she quit testing altogether for the next 

year. Mother failed to test for drugs while attending SAGE classes and

tested positive for methamphetamine just after she was discharged from 

the SAGE program. Before SAGE, she failed to engage consistently in 

treatment by repeatedly checking in and out of treatment facilities. And 

after testing positive for drugs at the end of December 2022, Mother failed 

to submit to any drug testing in the weeks just before the termination

hearing. Indeed, Mother made no good-faith effort to establish sobriety 

through consistent drug testing, despite DCS providing her the opportunity 

to engage in such testing and other services designed to help her overcome 

her substance abuse and parenting deficits.

¶16 Even considering Mother’s SAGE participation, the record 

supports the superior court’s finding that she had not shown consistent

sobriety to the extent necessary to overcome her history of chronic 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.M.

Decision of the Court

5

substance abuse. The superior court did not err in terminating Mother’s 

rights to the child based on the statutory ground of chronic substance 

abuse.2

II. Best Interests of the Child

¶17 Mother also challenges the superior court’s finding that 

termination is in the child’s best interests. Mother contends that her recent 

life changes, including remedying her homelessness and finding 

employment, defeat the court’s finding. We disagree.

¶18 In determining what is in the child’s best interests “the child’s 

interest in obtaining a loving, stable home, or at the very least avoiding a 

potentially harmful relationship with a parent, deserves at least as much 

weight as that accorded the interest of the unfit parent in maintaining 

parental rights.” Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 287, ¶ 37.

¶19 The best-interests determination must include a finding that

the child would benefit from a termination or be harmed by the 

continuation of the relationship. Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 

Ariz. 282, 288, ¶ 26 (App. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Sandra R. v. 

Dep’t of Child Safety, 248 Ariz. 224 (2020). “[C]ourts must consider the 

totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the severance 

determination, including the child’s adoptability and the parent’s

rehabilitation.” Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 148, ¶ 1. Factors favoring severance 

include the immediate availability of an adoptive placement and whether 

the current placement is meeting the child’s needs. Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t 

of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 5 (App. 1998); Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of 

Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 345, 350, ¶ 23 (App. 2013).

¶20 Mother does not challenge the superior court’s findings that 

the child is adoptable and that the current placement is meeting the child’s 

needs. And though Mother obtained housing in October 2022—after being 

homeless throughout the dependency—Father was included on the 

apartment’s lease agreement and lived there “[o]n and off,” despite his 

continued substance abuse and what Mother described as the parties’ 

2 Because we find clear and convincing evidence of chronic substance 

abuse, we do not address Mother’s arguments related to the out-ofplacement grounds. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 

280, ¶ 3 (App. 2002).
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.M.

Decision of the Court

6

“toxic” relationship.3 Mother also did not provide proof of her claimed 

part-time income to show she could independently provide for the child. 

Reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s finding that a continued 

parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the child because 

Mother’s chronic substance use will perpetuate concerns about a relapse, 

thereby creating instability and insecurity for the child, despite Mother’s 

recent “minimal efforts.”

¶21 The superior court did not err in finding that termination is in 

the child’s best interests.

CONCLUSION

¶22 Because reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s

order terminating Mother’s parental rights, we affirm.

3 Mother claimed Father was a “trigger” for her substance abuse and 

that she was obtaining a protective order against him but provided no

documentation of such an order.