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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CAITLIN F., Appellant, 

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, Appellee. 

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0127 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300JD201900084 

The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer PC, Anthem

By Florence M. Bruemmer

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Thomas Jose

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 9-1-2020
CAITLIN F. v. DCS, E.W. 

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Caitlin F. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s 

dependency order related to her daughter, E.W., born in 2011. Because 

reasonable evidence supports the court’s finding, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother has two adult children, M.F. and L.F. Before E.W.’s 

birth, Mother lived in North Carolina with M.F. and L.F. After M.F. accused 

her father of sexually assaulting her, Mother moved both children to 

Arizona, met E.W.’s father (“Father”) and gave birth to E.W. 

¶3 Father entered a no contest plea to the Amended Dependency 

Petition at the adjudication hearing on March 2, 2020, and is not a party to 

this appeal. Father has been accused or convicted of harming both M.F. and 

E.W. He pled guilty to child abuse after hitting E.W. in 2014. Mother caught

Father “peeping on” 15-year-old M.F. in 2016. In 2018, Mother discovered 

Father “taking inappropriate pictures” of 17-year-old M.F. Mother 

confronted Father, about the “peeping,” but did not contact law 

enforcement or disclose Father’s actions to M.F. because she thought they

were “not out of the ordinary.” Mother allowed Father to continue living 

in the home with M.F. and E.W., and Father’s voyeurism of M.F. continued. 

Father was later indicted on multiple counts of voyeurism and at the time 

of the dependency hearing, was awaiting trial. 

¶4 Mother brought E.W. to an urgent care facility in October

2019, when E.W. was eight years old, with symptoms Mother believed were 

consistent with herpes. Mother later admitted that E.W. also suffered from 

symptoms consistent with vaginitis since 2017 but had never received 

medical treatment. Mother told a police investigator she could not rule out

that Father transmitted herpes to E.W. When police questioned Father, he

conceded that he could have transmitted herpes to E.W., claiming he could 

not remember what he did when he was drunk. E.W. eventually tested

negative for any sexually transmitted disease. 
CAITLIN F. v. DCS, E.W. 

Decision of the Court

3 

¶5 Despite Mother’s knowledge of Father’s sexual deviance 

toward M.F., his prior abuse of E.W., his blackouts when drinking, and her

consciousness of the possibility that the abuse of M.F. was ongoing, she did 

not restrict Father’s access to E.W. In the fall of 2019, Department of Child 

Safety (“DCS”) implemented a safety plan prohibiting Father from 

unsupervised contact with E.W. and subsequently filed a dependency 

petition alleging E.W. was dependent as to Mother due to neglect and 

abuse. The court held a temporary custody hearing the day after the 

dependency petition was filed. DCS presented evidence that Mother failed 

to seek an order of protection against Father and refused the in-home

services DCS offered. Because of Mother’s inaction, E.W. remained in DCS’ 

temporary custody, and the court ordered Mother to file for custody of E.W. 

and seek temporary orders in family court. 

¶6 At the March 2, 2020 adjudication hearing, Mother presented 

evidence that she was engaging in some DCS services but had not begun

family counseling or completed a psychosexual evaluation. DCS presented 

evidence that, as of February 2020, Mother did not fully understand why 

she was involved with the Department because she believed she had 

protected E.W. to the best of her ability, even though E.W. disclosed things 

to Mother that should have raised concerns about Father. The court found 

E.W. dependent as to Mother based on Mother’s inability to protect E.W. 

Mother timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 

9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 8-

235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and -2101(A)(1) (2020). 

DISCUSSION

¶7 We review the appeal from a dependency finding for abuse 

of discretion. Shella H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47, 50, ¶ 13 (App. 

2016). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

juvenile court’s findings and will accept the trial court’s findings unless no 

reasonable evidence supports them. Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 

Ariz. 231, 235, ¶ 21 (App. 2005). 

¶8 On appeal, Mother argues the court erred by considering only 

her inability to protect E.W. before the dependency petition instead of

evaluating the circumstances at the time of the dependency trial. In support 

of this argument, Mother relies on Shella H., 239 Ariz. at 50, ¶ 12. There, the 

court considered a long history of domestic abuse between Mother and 

Father and concluded the children were dependent as to Mother. Shella H., 

239 Ariz. at 50, ¶ 14. The court reasoned that while historical behavior alone 

cannot be the basis for a dependency, it can be considered when evaluating 
CAITLIN F. v. DCS, E.W. 

Decision of the Court

4 

the present risk of harm to children if the risk to children remains at the 

time of the hearing or a parent has not acknowledged or addressed the risk. 

Id. at 51, ¶ 17. The court held that “[a]lthough the juvenile court articulated 

the wrong moment in time when dependency must be found to have 

existed, . . . it ultimately concluded ‘Mother is unable to provide for her 

children.’” Id. Similarly, in this case, while the court considered Mother’s 

history of failing to protect E.W., it made sufficient findings that Mother’s 

neglect presented an ongoing and current risk of harm to E.W.

¶9 Reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s conclusion 

that Mother is unable to protect E.W. Father has a history of abuse, sexual 

deviancy, and blackout drinking. Similarly, Mother has a history of 

minimizing Father’s risk to E.W., and continuing to allow him to live with 

and spend unsupervised time with E.W. Additionally, Mother failed to 

seek adequate medical care for E.W., did not involve law enforcement when 

Father’s actions endangered E.W. and failed to understand, even after the 

dependency petition was filed, how her inaction placed E.W. at risk. Based 

on Mother’s history and her failure to complete all recommended DCS 

services, the court reasonably concluded Mother had not sufficiently 

resolved the deficiencies in her protective capacity at the time of trial. 

CONCLUSION

¶10 Reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s

dependency finding. For this reason, we affirm the court’s order finding 

E.W. dependent as to Mother.