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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 J.H., J.H., and N.H.

No. 1 CA-JV 23-0003 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD42438

The Honorable Robert Ian Brooks, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate, Mesa

By Suzanne W. Sanchez

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jennifer R. Blum

Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

FILED 5-16-2023
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO J.H. et al.

Decision of the Court

2

¶1 Lakrysia H. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s finding 

that her children J.H. (herein “A.H.”), J.H., and N.H. are dependent. For 

the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In September 2022, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”)

took temporary custody of the children after receiving reports of physical 

abuse and neglect. Soon after, DCS filed a dependency petition on the 

grounds that Mother used excessive physical discipline, withheld food as 

discipline, and was emotionally abusive. The superior court held a threeday trial on the dependency in November and December 2022. Relevant to 

this appeal, the court heard testimony from Mother, the DCS investigative 

case specialist, and a Peoria police detective.

¶3 At trial, Mother conceded that A.H. and J.H. were dependent, 

as they refused her supervision. However, she disputed the proposed 

factual bases of the dependency—abuse or neglect. As for N.H., Mother 

contested the dependency and the finding requested by DCS. 

¶4 The DCS investigative case specialist testified that DCS 

received a report that Mother had withheld food from N.H. and A.H. as 

discipline. A few weeks later, A.H. was detained at a juvenile facility and 

then sent to MIND 24-7 at Mother’s request. DCS received a second report 

of abuse or neglect after Mother appeared unwilling to pick up A.H. from 

the juvenile facility.

¶5 Following the initial report, A.H. disclosed a pattern of food 

deprivation as punishment, Mother hitting A.H. with a broom, a belt, and 

her hand, and inappropriate physical discipline of all three children. J.H. 

and N.H. corroborated A.H.’s allegations of physical abuse, emotional 

abuse, and food withholding.

¶6 The DCS specialist testified that A.H. did not wish to return 

home, and noted that “the first thing out of [A.H.’s] mouth” after the 

specialist introduced herself was “why haven’t you taken us yet, and why 

does our mom keep getting to do this to us?” A.H. told the specialist that 

Mother used physical discipline “basically anytime she was unhappy,” but 

more often, Mother verbally abused the children. N.H. described A.H. 

being left “bleeding with scratches and bruises” following Mother’s 

physical discipline. N.H. and A.H. both disclosed that Mother had 

instructed them not to speak to DCS. 
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO J.H. et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶7 Mother called A.H.’s special education teacher who testified 

that A.H. did not disclose abuse or food withholding to him. A police 

detective who had investigated Mother on DCS’s behalf testified that 

Mother was cooperative, allowed N.H. and J.H. to speak with the officer, 

and that neither child disclosed abuse during the investigation. The officer 

observed food in the refrigerator and in the pantry that was accessible to 

the children. The detective reviewed photos of a bruise on N.H.’s leg that 

was allegedly caused by Mother spanking her and believed that the “faint” 

bruising visible in the photo was inconsistent with criminal abuse and 

therefore closed the case. 

¶8 Mother denied that she abused or neglected her children. She 

testified that she used physical punishment only “as a last resort,” which 

included spanking with a belt or throwing a slipper at the children. She 

claimed the children were violent towards each other, and that she could 

not control A.H. Mother explained that A.H. was admitted to Mind 24-7 

for mental health concerns after breaking windows in the family’s

apartment. While she admitted she did not want A.H. returning home after 

Mind 24-7 released her, Mother denied that she refused to pick her up. 

¶9 Mother admitted to throwing some “junk food” away, 

explaining that in one instance she did so because the children had bought

more at the Dollar Store on her EBT card than she allowed. Mother 

admitted she had switched off the electrical breaker that would allow the 

children to cook food to determine which child made any given mess in the 

kitchen.

¶10 Mother participated in counselling services from A New Leaf, 

but denied she had anger issues. She testified that she requested DCS 

provide respite and attendant care, and that these services would help her 

reunify with the children. 

¶11 Mother testified that she is willing to have N.H., J.H., and 

A.H. in her home. And while Mother agreed that the children “may be 

traumatized at this point,” she was “not sure” whether any of her behavior 

caused their trauma.

¶12 After the second day of trial, Mother pled no contest to the 

allegations in the petition but noted that she planned to challenge the plea’s 

factual basis on appeal.

¶13 The court accepted the plea and stated it would not find that 

physical discipline was abuse as a matter of law, but did find “[Section] 8-

201’s definition of abuse is broad, and [the court] is crediting the children’s 
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO J.H. et al.

Decision of the Court

4

statements that there was more than just the belt being used and that it was 

being used . . . sort of in anger and often inappropriately that did result in 

at least one bruise, if not more regularly.”

¶14 The court issued a detailed minute entry finding the children 

dependent as to Mother. N.H. was placed in an in-home dependency at her 

request while A.H. and J.H. remained in out-of-home placement. In finding 

that Mother’s physical discipline was excessive, the court credited the case 

manager’s testimony about N.H.’s bruise and the children’s statements to 

DCS that Mother’s discipline had resulted in injury. The court also found 

severe emotional abuse as to N.H. based on school psychologist 

evaluations. The court found Mother’s testimony that she used physical 

discipline as a last resort not credible and determined Mother “had little 

insight” into the effect her physical discipline had on the children. The 

court found Mother withheld food as a means of discipline “which has and 

will place the children at a substantial risk of harm.”

¶15 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 8-235(A).

DISCUSSION

¶16 We review a superior court’s dependency finding for an 

abuse of discretion and will affirm if any reasonable evidence supports the 

finding. Joelle M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 525, 527, ¶ 9 (App. 2018).

We do not reweigh the evidence or second-guess the superior court’s 

credibility determinations on appeal. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 

207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 (App. 2004).

¶17 On appeal, Mother challenges the factual basis for the 

superior court’s findings of abuse and neglect following her no contest plea 

and challenges the superior court’s failure to order “specifically requested” 

services.

I. An adequate factual basis supports the superior court’s findings

of abuse or neglect.

¶18 Mother argues that the record 1) did not support a neglect 

finding because her actions did not create an unreasonable risk of harm 2) 

did not support a physical abuse finding because her actions caused no 

physical injuries, and 3) did not support a finding of “severe or serious” 

emotional damage. Because we affirm on grounds 1 and 2, we do not 

address ground 3.
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO J.H. et al.

Decision of the Court

5

¶19 A parent who pleads no contest to a dependency allegation

may challenge the factual basis for a dependency finding, Tina T. v. Dep’t of 

Child Safety, 236 Ariz. 295, 298, ¶¶ 14-15 (App. 2014), overruled on other 

grounds by Sandra R. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 248 Ariz. 224 (2020), which we 

review for an abuse of discretion. Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 

484, 488, ¶ 12 (App. 2015). A court must set forth written findings 

constituting a factual basis. R.P. Juv. Ct. 338(d)(3)-(4). Abuse means “the 

infliction or allowing of physical injury, impairment of bodily function or 

disfigurement . . . .” A.R.S. § 8-201(2).

¶20 The record has more than reasonable evidence to support the 

superior court’s dependency finding, including the children’s statements. 

¶21 Mother only wants us to reconsider the question based on 

evidence she prefers, which we will not do. She first argues the record had 

inadequate evidence of “physical injury.” But § 8-201 does not require, as 

Mother alleges, that physical abuse leave “lasting marks, bruises or other 

like injuries.” It only requires the “infliction or allowing of physical injury.” 

Id.

¶22 She next argues that because DCS agreed that the children 

“did not appear to be malnourished” withholding food from them did not 

cause an unreasonable risk of harm. Neglect means, “[t]he . . .

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

. . . if that inability or unwillingness causes substantial risk of harm to the 

child’s health or welfare.” A.R.S. § 8-201(25)(a) (emphasis added). But as 

we noted in E.R. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, neglect need not result in a serious 

physical injury to constitute abuse. 237 Ariz. 56, 59, ¶¶ 13-15 (App. 2015). 

To hold otherwise, “a parent could neglect and physically abuse his child, 

but as long as his behavior did not cause serious physical or emotional 

injury, no grounds would exist to terminate his parental rights.” Id. at ¶ 14. 

The plain text of § 8-201 contradicts Mother’s interpretation.

¶23 Here, the children disclosed to DCS that Mother regularly 

withheld food from them as a method of discipline. Even if no serious harm 

resulted, a finding that this practice created “a substantial risk” of harm is 

not an abuse of discretion. We affirm the court’s finding of neglect.

II. The superior court did not err by failing to order all services 

requested by Mother.

¶24 Mother argues that the court’s failure to order DCS to provide 

respite care and attendant care constituted an abuse of discretion. DCS has 

an obligation to provide services designed to address the circumstances 
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO J.H. et al.

Decision of the Court

6

leading to dependency. A.R.S. § 8-846. While DCS must make reasonable 

efforts, DCS need not provide “every conceivable service.” Maricopa Cnty. 

Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353 (App. 1994). While Mother 

requested these services, she fails to explain how they would address the 

issues leading to dependency: her excessive discipline. We find no abuse 

of discretion in the superior court declining to require these services.

CONCLUSION

¶25 We affirm.