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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 DEPENDENCY AS TO A.S.

No. 1 CA-JV 22-0283 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD534974

The Honorable Amanda M. Parker, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek PC, Scottsdale

By John L. Popilek

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Amanda Adams

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 5-25-2023
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.S.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Maria S. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

adjudicating her daughter, A.S. (“Child”), dependent based on Child’s 

behaviors and neglect. A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(i), (iii). For the following 

reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother is the biological aunt and adoptive mother of Child, 

born in 2005. Mother adopted Child as a single parent when Child was one 

year old. She is married to Maurice S. (“Husband”), who is not Child’s legal 

father. 

¶3 Child has been diagnosed with asthma, attention-deficit 

hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), oppositional defiant disorder, and 

learning disabilities. She has had an individualized education plan (“IEP”) 

in place since 2017 to address her emotional, behavioral, and learning 

needs.

¶4 In December 2020, Child stole $550 worth of jewelry from 

Mother. Mother reported the incident to law enforcement, and Child 

admitted to the investigating officer that she stole the jewelry after an 

argument with Mother and Husband. Mother declined to file charges but 

no longer allowed Child to be in the home without supervision.

¶5 Child began running away from home in October 2021.

Mother was uncertain exactly how many times Child ran away, but it was 

“excessive.” She filed at least four missing person reports for Child between 

October 2021 and April 2022. One officer’s follow-up report described Child 

as a “habitual runaway who does not listen to her mother and returns home 

whenever she wants.” Mother eventually learned that Child often resided 

with her friend, Blake (we use a pseudonym to protect the minor child’s 

identity). Between October 2021 and August 2022, Mother contacted Blake’s 

family twice to check on Child.
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.S.

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 Approximately four months after Child started running 

away, Mother and Husband moved into a two-bedroom apartment. Before 

the move, Child had her own bedroom. But because Child began smoking 

marijuana in her bedroom and stashed Mother and Husband’s personal

belongings there on occasion, Mother did not permit Child to have her own 

room in the new apartment. She permitted Child to sleep in the same room 

as her—while Husband slept in the other room—though Child elected to 

sleep on the living room sofa. Mother stated that although Child had a 

dresser for her clothes, she “refused to use it,” and kept her clothes around

the living room.

¶7 On August 25, 2022, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) 

obtained temporary custody of Child after she reported conflict in the home 

and feeling unwanted and unsupported by Mother and Husband. DCS 

filed a dependency petition five days later. The petition, as summarized by 

the juvenile court, focused on two categories of alleged neglect by Mother: 

(1) locking Child out of the home with no plan in place for shelter or food,

and (2) failing to obtain medical and behavioral services for Child. 

¶8 Specifically, DCS alleged Mother has an “extremely negative 

perception” of Child and has not engaged in any services to address her

behavioral needs since Child began running away. DCS also alleged 

Mother was not properly caring for Child’s asthma, and locked Child out 

of the home if she missed her curfew. The juvenile court set a dependency 

hearing, finding that, based on DCS’s allegations, it would be contrary to 

Child’s welfare to remain in the home.

¶9 At the three-day contested dependency hearing, the court 

heard testimony from Mother, Mother’s two biological sons, and the 

Department’s investigative case manager. Though the court found 

Mother’s sons to be credible, it concluded that their testimony “added little” 

to its determinations because neither resided with Mother or Child during 

the relevant time periods. 

¶10 The court concluded it is more likely than not that Mother 

failed to obtain proper behavioral and mental health services for Child. It 

found that Mother’s only effort in seeking treatment for Child’s mental and 

behavioral needs was attending a yearly IEP meeting at Child’s school. The 

court ruled that Mother’s refusal to seek proper treatment for Child placed 

her health and welfare at risk.

¶11 The court also concluded it is more likely than not that Child 

was often locked out of the home with no plan in place for shelter. The court
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.S.

Decision of the Court

4

found it “very relevant” that Mother and Husband moved into a new 

apartment after Child started running away and did not provide Child with 

her own room at the new home. The court found it more likely than not that 

Mother and Husband moved to this new residence “with no intention of 

providing a home for [Child], and with no intention of seeking treatment 

for her behaviors.”

¶12 The juvenile court adjudicated Child dependent based on its 

finding that Mother failed to provide for Child’s basic needs, including 

adequate shelter, and that she failed to obtain proper behavioral and mental 

health services for Child. Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. 

Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), 12-2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶13 We review a dependency finding for an abuse of discretion,

Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 484, 488, ¶ 12 (App. 2015), and will 

affirm a dependency adjudication “unless no reasonable evidence supports 

it,” Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 235 Ariz. 266, 267, ¶ 6 (App. 2014) 

(quotation omitted). The juvenile court is in the best position to weigh the 

evidence, and “we will not reweigh the evidence on review.” Louis C., 237 

Ariz. at 488, ¶ 14.

¶14 The allegations in a dependency petition must be proven by a 

preponderance of the evidence. A.R.S. § 8-844(C)(1). This standard requires 

the factfinder to determine whether a fact sought to be proved is more 

probable than not. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 25 (2005). 

Because the primary concern in a dependency case is always the child’s best 

interests, Joelle M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 525, 527, ¶ 10 (App. 2018), 

the juvenile court “is vested with a great deal of discretion.” Willie G. v. Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 231, 235, ¶ 21 (App. 2005) (quotation omitted). 

¶15 A dependent child is one “[i]n need of proper and effective 

parental care and control . . . who has no parent . . . willing to exercise or 

capable of exercising such care and control,” A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(i), or a 

child “whose home is unfit by reason of abuse, neglect, cruelty or depravity 

by a parent,” A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(iii). “Neglect” means “[t]he inability or 

unwillingness of a parent . . . of a child to provide that child with 

supervision . . . if that inability or unwillingness causes substantial risk of 

harm to the child’s health or welfare.” A.R.S. § 8-201(25)(a). 

¶16 The juvenile court found, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that Child is in need of effective parental care and control, and Mother is 

unwilling to provide this care and control. The court relied on Mother’s 
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.S.

Decision of the Court

5

failure to engage Child in proper health services—despite Child’s

escalating behaviors, mental health conditions, and tendency to run away.

¶17 The court also relied on the fact that between October 2021 

and August 2022, Mother only contacted Blake’s family twice to check on 

Child or offer any support. It found that Mother’s testimony about Child’s 

access into the home was inconsistent, and the fact that Child did not have 

her own room indicated that Mother and Husband were not intending for 

Child to reside there. 

¶18 Mother contends the record is devoid of any evidence 

establishing neglect, or demonstrating dependency is in Child’s best 

interests. She argues that Child is not dependent merely because Child is 

“an emotionally troubled young woman.” 

¶19 Reasonable evidence shows that Mother was unwilling or 

unable to provide effective supervision of Child. Mother failed to seek 

proper services as Child demonstrated difficult behaviors and consistently

ran away. When DCS offered family counseling services, Mother declined

to participate. And she did not communicate any willingness to have Child 

back in her home until she was asked at trial. Reasonable evidence in the 

record supports the juvenile court’s findings. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of 

Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 12 (App. 2002) (we do not reweigh the 

evidence and will defer to the court’s resolution when supported by the 

record).

CONCLUSION

¶20 We affirm.