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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JACKLYN D., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, C.D., K.D., F.D., B.D., N.D., 

Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 18-0156 

Appeal from the Superior Court in La Paz County

No. S1500JD201400009

The Honorable Samuel E. Vederman, Judge (Retired)

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Rideout Law, P.L.L.C., Lake Havasu City

By Bradlee H. Rideout, Wendy Marcus

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa

By Amanda Adams

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 12-18-2018
JACKLYN D. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge James P. Beene and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Jacklyn D. ("Mother") appeals the juvenile court's order of 

termination of her parental rights to her five minor children ("Children"). 

Because the record supports the juvenile court's findings in favor of

termination, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In August 2014, the Children were living with Mother,

Mother's father ("Grandfather"), and the father of four of the Children

("Father"). All were living on Grandfather's property. The oldest child was 

nine years old at that time. On August 27, 2014, workers with the 

Department of Child Safety ("DCS"), responded to a report of suspected 

neglect and visited the family. Mother and Father were suspected of using 

methamphetamine, but both denied allegations of substance abuse. The 

DCS workers found that two children lived with their parents in one travel 

trailer, and the remaining three lived in a separate mobile home. The DCS 

workers observed that the Children were living in unsanitary and unsafe 

conditions and removed them. The Children were placed with different 

foster care providers, and subsequently declared to be dependent.

¶3 DCS referred Mother to a variety of services, including a 

parenting class, individual counseling, drug testing, and a domestic 

violence class. Most of her referrals were done through Community Health 

Associates ("CHA"), and she was also referred to transportation for all

services.

¶4 Mother began to attend parenting classes through CHA, but 

those classes stopped in May 2015, because she did not participate: Mother

was inconsistent in her attendance, often did not complete homework, and 

fought and argued with Father during the classes. Mother also initially

attended counseling through CHA, but stopped in April 2015. However, 

Mother completed the domestic violence class.
JACKLYN D. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 Mother was referred to Treatment Assessment Screening 

Center ("TASC") and CHA for substance abuse treatment and drug testing. 

Mother routinely failed to submit to drug tests, and when she did, her tests 

were often positive for methamphetamine. In March 2015, Mother began 

an inpatient drug treatment program, but left after only four days.

¶6 Dr. Leonard Sarff, a clinical psychologist, completed a

psychological assessment of Mother on April 2, 2015. Based on Mother's 

past lack of follow-through, he opined with a "guarded" prognosis that 

Mother would be able to demonstrate minimal parenting skills in the near 

future. He noted that Mother resisted going to therapy, and that she "needs 

to participate in therapy," including cognitive behavioral therapy.

¶7 From August 2015 to January 2016, Mother's drug tests were 

consistently negative, with only one invalid test. As a result, DCS referred 

her for additional parent-aide services, and beginning December 2015, DCS 

began to place the Children with Grandfather.

¶8 By February 1, 2016, all of the Children were living with 

Grandfather. Around the same time, Mother submitted an invalid drug test 

and started refusing drug tests. She also stopped engaging with DCS,

which caused DCS to suspend her parent-aide referral and inform her she 

could not reside with the Children in Grandfather's home until DCS could 

verify that she was sober. In June 2016, the conditions at Grandfather's 

house had become unsafe and unsanitary, and DCS removed the Children

and again placed them in foster care. DCS subsequently requested that the 

case plan be changed from reunification to severance and adoption, which 

the juvenile court approved. DCS filed its motion for termination on 

October 10, 2016. The termination hearing took place on five trial days 

beginning May 2017, and ending February 2018.

¶9 In 2016 and 2017, Mother continued to struggle with the case 

plan. She routinely disengaged from services, frequently missed drug tests, 

occasionally tested positive for methamphetamine, missed and cancelled 

counseling appointments, and failed to complete DCS-referred parenting 

classes. Despite the availability of transportation to visit the Children, her 

visitation was sporadic. Mother again entered an inpatient drug-treatment 

program that was supposed to last for a few months, but she left after a few

days. In December 2017, a DCS worker described Mother's overall 

compliance as "minimal."

¶10 On July 17, 2017, Dr. Sarff performed another assessment and 

opined that Mother's prognosis of being able to minimally parent the 
JACKLYN D. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

Children in the foreseeable future improved from "guarded" to "fair." 

However, when Dr. Sarff learned that Mother had misled him about key 

aspects of her life (e.g., Mother falsely told Dr. Sarff that she had been 

participating in counseling), he changed the prognosis back to "guarded," 

or even "impaired."

¶11 In the final months before the juvenile court ruled on DCS's 

motion for termination, Mother demonstrated some improvement. Mother

had two mostly-positive visits with the Children, although the two older 

children didn't listen to her and the supervising DCS caseworker, who was 

new to the case, had to step in and help. Mother also began attending 

counseling and substance abuse classes. However, she still missed most 

drug tests and tested positive for methamphetamine as late as February 

2018.

¶12 At the end of the termination hearing, the Children were all 

living in adoptive placements.

¶13 On April 20, 2018, the juvenile court terminated the parental 

relationship between Mother and the Children based on the nine months'

time-in-care ground and the fifteen months' time-in-care ground, and 

found that termination was in the best interests of the Children. Mother 

timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, 

of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") 

sections 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and -2101(A)

DISCUSSION

¶14 Mother argues that the juvenile court's order was not 

supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, she argues that DCS did not 

prove: that Mother "substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy 

the situation that kept the Children in out-of-home care"; that there was a 

substantial likelihood that she would "not be capable of exercising proper 

and effective parental care and control in the near future"; or that severance

was in the Children's best interests. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8). Because we hold 

that the record supported termination on the fifteen months' time-in-care 

ground, we need not consider the remaining ground. Seth M. v. Arienne M., 

245 Ariz. 245, 259, ¶ 13 (App. 2018).

I. Substantial Likelihood of Proper and Effective Parental Care and 

Control in the Near Future

¶15 We will uphold the juvenile court's finding of a ground for 

termination "unless we must say as a matter of law that no one could 
JACKLYN D. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

reasonably find the evidence to be clear and convincing." Denise R. v. Ariz.

Dep't of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92, 94, ¶ 7 (App. 2009). To terminate on the 

fifteen months' time-in-care ground, DCS had to prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that the Children had been in an out-of-home 

placement for at least fifteen months, Mother had not remedied the 

circumstances which caused the out-of-home placement, and there was a 

substantial likelihood that she would "not be capable of exercising proper 

and effective parental care and control in the near future." A.R.S. § 8-

533(B)(8). Mother only contests the last element, arguing that with the 

proper help, she could be capable of exercising proper and effective 

parental care and control in the near future.

¶16 At termination, the Children had been in the out-of-home

placement for three years, and Mother was not showing significant signs of 

improvement. Mother showed no signs of improvement with her drug 

abuse and continued to refuse drug tests. She tested positive for 

methamphetamine as late as February 2018. Although she had positive 

interactions with the Children, she remained unable to parent them without 

the help of the DCS supervisor. In the span of three-and-a-half years, 

Mother never consistently and fully engaged with her services for more 

than a couple of months.

¶17 In addition, the DCS case manager for Mother's case did not 

think Mother would be able to parent in the near future, and Dr. Sarff, who 

performed two psychological assessments of Mother, opined that the 

prognosis for Mother being able to effectively parent in the near future was 

"guarded" or "impaired."

¶18 Mother argued that she was likely to improve once she 

receives cognitive behavior therapy, pointing to Dr. Sarff's statement that if 

she had successfully completed such therapy, it would have alleviated 

some of the concerns he had about her. However, while it may be true that 

Dr. Sarff would have changed his prognosis based on Mother's completion 

of services, the record shows that she did not complete the vast majority of 

services offered to her. This lack of progress on Mother's part is evidence 

of her inability to parent in the near future. We only review to determine 

the sufficiency of the evidence, and will not reweigh evidence on appeal. 

Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009)

¶19 Based on the facts contained in the record, the juvenile court 

could reasonably conclude by clear and convincing evidence that there was 

a substantial likelihood that Mother would not be able to properly and 

effectively parent the Children in the near future.
JACKLYN D. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

6

II. Children's Best Interests

¶20 To meet the best-interests requirement, DCS had to prove that 

termination would either confer a benefit on the Children or remove a 

detriment from them. Dominique M. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 96, 98, 

¶ 8 (App. 2016).

¶21 At the time of the hearing, the Children were in adoptive 

placements. The juvenile court found that the Children were adoptable and 

were doing well in foster care. The court also found that the Children's 

health and safety would be in jeopardy if they were returned to Mother.

¶22 Mother does not explain why she believes there was

insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's best-interests finding. 

Because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the findings, the 

juvenile court did not err in determining that termination was in the best 

interests of the Children.

CONCLUSION

¶23 Because there was sufficient evidence to support a ground for 

termination and that termination was in the best interests of the Children, 

we affirm the juvenile court's order terminating Mother's parental 

relationship with the Children.