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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.R.

No. 1 CA-JV 23-0211 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD534218

The Honorable Joshua D. Rogers, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek, P.C., Scottsdale

By John L. Popilek

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Ken Sanders

Co-Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety

The Huff Law Firm, PLLC, Tucson

By Daniel R. Huff, Laura J. Huff

Co-Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety

Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix

By Amanda L. Adams

Counsel for Appellee Child

FILED 4-30-2024
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.R.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her 

daughter, Erica,

1 born in July 2021. The juvenile court terminated the 

parent-child relationship based on six months’ time-in-care, fifteen months’

time-in-care, and length of felony sentence grounds, as well as finding that 

termination was in the child’s best interests. See A.R.S. § 8-533(A), 

-533(B)(8)(b)-(c), -533(B)(4). For the reasons below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Both Mother and Father2 have significant substance abuse 

histories. Mother began using drugs at age 15 and used various substances 

including heroin, methamphetamine, methadone, marijuana, and fentanyl.

In 2019, she was arrested for, among other things, selling 

methamphetamine and heroin. Mother entered into a plea agreement, and

she was placed on probation for seven years. She was required to

participate in a drug assessment and attend substance-abuse treatment as 

recommended by the probation department. Around this time, Mother lost 

custody of her two older children as a result of being incarcerated and a 

subsequent divorce.3

¶3 Mother received substance-abuse treatment through Terros 

Health from July 2020 until she quit the program in January 2021. She 

reported that she then participated in substance-abuse treatment through 

Community Medical Services for about a month around the time of Erica’s 

birth.

1 We use a pseudonym to protect the child’s identity.

2 Father is not a party to this appeal.

3 Mother spent 47 days in jail before beginning probation on her 2019 

charges. Her former husband gained custody of the two children during 

this time. 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.R.

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Mother and Father were living in a motel at the time of Erica’s 

birth. Erica was born exposed to methamphetamine, amphetamine, 

fentanyl, and methadone. She spent her first week of life in the hospital 

being treated for withdrawal symptoms. 

¶5 Mother tested positive for methamphetamine, fentanyl, 

amphetamines, and methadone at the time of Erica’s birth. In her interview 

with the Department of Child Safety (DCS), she admitted using fentanyl 

every day of her pregnancy, including the day she went into labor. She 

reported she did not seek prenatal care because she was ashamed.

¶6 DCS released Erica from the hospital into her paternal aunt’s

care and filed a dependency petition. Mother did not contest the petition,

and Erica was found dependent as to her in August 2021. The court adopted 

a family reunification case plan and affirmed Erica’s placement with her 

aunt.

¶7 DCS directed Mother to participate in random drug testing. 

This required Mother to contact the testing provider to determine whether

she would need to test that day. Mother successfully provided one urine 

sample on August 12, 2021, which tested positive for methadone. After

August 18, 2021, Mother stopped calling the testing provider. Mother was 

also referred to Terros Health for a drug assessment and treatment. She

completed intake at her home but did not engage in services, so her referral 

was closed. Mother was offered supervised visitation, but had only one visit 

with Erica before she was arrested and later incarcerated.

¶8 Mother was arrested in January 2022 for possession of 

methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, false reporting to 

law enforcement, and criminal trespass. At this point, she had not engaged 

in any services offered by DCS since her singular visit with Erica and her 

Terros Health intake in mid-August 2021. The criminal court revoked her

probation and sentenced her to four years in the Arizona Department of 

Corrections (DOC). Mother’s expected release date is January 2025. 

¶9 Mother was transferred multiple times within the jail and the 

DOC, complicating visitation scheduling efforts. Still, DCS case managers 

and corrections officers worked to schedule visits between Mother and 

Erica twice per month. Mother had approximately five supervised and a 

few virtual visits with Erica during the dependency. 

¶10 At a review hearing in April 2022, at DCS’s request, the court

changed the case plan to severance and adoption. DCS moved to terminate 

Mother’s parental rights in May 2022 when Erica had been in care for ten 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.R.

Decision of the Court

4

months. The original petition alleged substance abuse and six months’ time 

in out-of-home placement as statutory grounds for termination. But 

because Mother began receiving and participating in substance-abuse

treatment in prison, DCS amended its petition for termination in June 2023. 

DCS’s amended termination removed the substance-abuse grounds but 

added fifteen months’ time in care and Mother’s length of felony sentence 

as additional statutory grounds for termination. 

¶11 The court held a termination adjudication hearing in 

September 2023. The DCS case manager testified about Mother’s failure to 

engage in substance-abuse treatment and random urinalysis testing before 

her incarceration. The case manager and Mother both testified about Erica’s 

relationship with her aunt, who is her caregiver. Mother also testified she 

faced difficulties receiving visits with Erica, but agreed that the difficulties 

arose because of her incarceration. 

¶12 At the end of the adjudication hearing, the court terminated 

Mother’s parental rights based on Mother’s length of felony sentence, six

months’ time in care, and fifteen months’ time-in-care. The court also found 

termination was in Erica’s best interests because of the success of her 

current placement, her prospective adoption by the paternal aunt, and 

Mother’s history of failed sobriety. Mother timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶13 Mother contends the court erred in terminating her parental 

rights because DCS: (1) failed to prove it provided her with diligent 

reunification efforts by clear and convincing evidence and (2) failed to 

prove termination was in Erica’s best interests by a preponderance of the 

evidence. 

¶14 A parent’s right to custody and control of his or her own child, 

while fundamental, is not absolute. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 

Ariz. 246, 248, ¶¶ 11–12 (2000). The juvenile court may terminate the 

parental relationship where (1) clear and convincing evidence shows the 

existence of a statutory ground for termination under A.R.S. § 8-533, and 

(2) a preponderance of the evidence shows that termination is in the child’s 

best interests. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 281–82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005). 

¶15 We accept the juvenile court’s factual findings so long as they 

are supported by reasonable evidence and inferences, and we affirm the 

court’s legal conclusions unless they are clearly erroneous. Brionna J. v. 

Dep’t of Child Safety, 255 Ariz. 471, 278–79, ¶¶ 30–31 (2023). We do not 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.R.

Decision of the Court

5

reweigh the evidence. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 

47, ¶ 8 (App. 2004). 

I. Diligent Reunification Efforts

¶16 Mother challenges DCS’s reunification efforts for the first 

time on appeal. Because the juvenile court is in the best position to evaluate 

the adequacy of reunification efforts, a parent is precluded from 

challenging these efforts for the first time on appeal. Shawanee S. v. Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174, 178–79, ¶ 16 (App. 2014). If Mother believed 

DCS was not making diligent efforts “at any point, it was incumbent on her 

to promptly bring those concerns to the attention of the juvenile court.” Id.

at 179, ¶ 18. Yet, even had this argument not been waived, the record 

supports the juvenile court’s finding that DCS provided diligent 

reunification efforts in the form of substance-abuse treatment referrals, 

random urinalysis testing, and supervised visitation. 

¶17 DCS may terminate a parent’s rights to his or her child based 

on the child’s time in an out-of-home placement. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8). A 

child under the age of three who has been in an out-of-home placement for 

longer than six months may be permanently removed if the court finds “the 

parent has substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy the 

circumstances” causing the placement. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(b). A child who 

has been in an out-of-home placement for longer than fifteen months may 

be permanently removed from the parent’s care if the court finds “the 

parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to

be in an out-of-home placement 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.” A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c) (emphasis added). 

The agency responsible for the care of the child must make “a diligent effort 

to provide appropriate reunification services” to the family. A.R.S.

§ 8-533(B)(8). 

¶18 DCS has a statutory and constitutional obligation to make 

these reasonable efforts to reunify the family. See Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of 

Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 19 (App. 2009). Reasonable or diligent efforts 

have been made if DCS provides the parent “with the time and opportunity 

to participate in programs designed to help her to become an effective 

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

2011) (citation omitted). DCS need not provide futile efforts, only those 

“with a reasonable prospect of success.” Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. 

Sec., 193 Ariz. 185, 192, ¶ 34 (App. 1999). Difficulties receiving reunification 

services because of incarceration are not imputed to DCS—“[t]he court can 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.R.

Decision of the Court

6

certainly consider that incarceration will as a practical matter typically 

preclude all but minimal visits.” Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214 

Ariz. 445, 451, ¶ 17 (App. 2007).

¶19 Mother was offered a myriad of services, including 

supervised visitation, drug testing, and referrals for substance-abuse 

treatment. Mother was offered these services before her incarceration and 

declined to meaningfully participate in them. The juvenile court properly 

considered how Mother had “difficulties nurturing her relationship with 

[Erica] when she did not have the significant impediment of incarceration.” 

See Christy C., 214 Ariz. at 451, ¶ 18. And, once incarcerated, Mother 

demonstrated her ability to engage in drug-treatment services, further 

proving her disengagement with services before her incarceration was 

because of her inaction, not DCS’s reunification-service provision.

¶20 Mother next points to visitation scheduling conflicts

impairing her ability to form a bond with Erica. The DCS case manager 

testified about the reasons for the visitation conflicts which included

Mother being transferred between facilities, Erica being ill, 

miscommunication on the part of corrections officers, and standard DOC 

visitation waitlist regulations. Mother’s incarceration situation was to 

blame for missed visits, not DCS’s lack of effort. We agree with the juvenile 

court: DCS provided “both reasonable and/or diligent efforts . . . to 

effectuate reunification of the family.”

II. Best Interests

¶21 Mother has similarly shown no error in the court’s 

best-interests finding. To terminate a parental relationship, the court must 

find that termination is in the child’s best interests by a preponderance of 

the evidence. Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 288, ¶ 41. Proof by a preponderance of 

the evidence is proof that a fact is more probable than not. Id. at 284, ¶ 25. 

¶22 The best interests of the child are analyzed under the totality 

of the circumstances, but the “child’s interest in stability and security” is 

the primary concern. Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146, 148, 150, 

¶¶ 1, 12 (2018) (citation omitted). Termination is in the child’s best interests 

if it will benefit the child, or if failure to terminate will harm the child. Id. at 

150, ¶ 13. The court may consider the “immediate availability of an 

adoptive placement.” Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377, 

¶ 5 (App. 1998). 

¶23 The juvenile court found that Erica’s paternal aunt “is 

providing [her] with a loving and nurturing home environment” and that 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.R.

Decision of the Court

7

Erica is “thriving” in her care. She has confirmed that she is ready and 

willing to adopt Erica as soon as adoption is possible. The record establishes 

that Erica’s interests in safety and security are best supported by placement 

with her paternal aunt. “In proving severance is in the children’s best

interests, DCS must show either that severance affirmatively benefits the 

children (such as showing they are adoptable or more stable in an existing 

placement), or eliminates a detriment to the children if the parent-child 

relationship is not severed.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 

96, 98, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).

¶24 In contrast, as the juvenile court found, preserving Mother’s 

parent-child relationship with Erica would be detrimental because it “could 

expose [Erica] to further abuse and neglect” resulting from Mother’s

inability to “safely and appropriately care for, protect, and meet [Erica’s]

needs.” “The interests in permanency for [the child] must prevail over 

[Mother’s] uncertain battle with drugs.” Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. 

Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 383, ¶ 29 (App. 2010) (citation omitted). Mother’s history 

of repeated, failed attempts at sobriety and her incarceration serve as 

barriers to Erica’s stability and are detrimental to permanency, which is in 

the child’s best interests. It follows that Erica’s best interests are served by 

severance.

¶25 Finally, Mother argues that it is in Erica’s best interests to 

maintain a relationship with her biological siblings. But sibling 

relationships are just one factor for the court to consider. See Audra T., 194 

Ariz. at 378, ¶ 6 (finding placement with biological sister a factor in support 

of best-interests finding). Here, Mother does not have a significant 

relationship with her two older children, having lost custody over them in 

2018. She had little contact with them even before her incarceration in 2022. 

Erica would likely not have contact with her biological siblings even if 

Mother were to retain parental rights. As such, the court’s best-interests 

finding was supported by a preponderance of the trial evidence. 

CONCLUSION

¶26 We affirm.