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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

ANGELIQUE B.

, Appellant

,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, P.B., M.S., A.S.

, Appellee s

.

No. 1 CA

- JV 15

- 0011

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD22468
The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda

, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Anne M. Williams, P.C., Mesa By Anne M. Williams Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office

, Tucson By Laura J. Huff

C ounsel for Appellee State of ArizonaANGELIQUE B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

P O R T L E Y

, Judge:

¶1 Angelique B. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her three minor children, P.B., M.S.

, and

A.S. 1 S he contends the court erred by finding that termination was in the
children’s best interests. Because we discern no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

FACTS 2 AND PROCEDURA L BACKGROUND

¶2 T he Department of Child Safety 3 received two anonymous hotline report s about Mother and her three biological children , P.B., M.S.

, and A.S. The first report was made on August 3, 2012

, and asserted they were living in a filthy home

, filled with dog feces and urine, and they lacked adequate food. The Department later learned that police officers went to the house that day because they suspected the occupants were selling drugs. The second report was made a few weeks later, and descr ibed that although Mother had given M.S. and A.S. to their paternal grandmother (“Grandmother”) to get them out of the inappropriate home and to keep them away from her abusive brother

, Mother took the m back after arguing
with Grandmother.

¶3 The Department subsequently began an investigation and discovered that Mother’s boyfriend had physically abus ed her and the

children

. T he Department also learned that Mother was unemployed, had

no source of income

, and lacked stable housing. The Department asked

Mother to attend a t eam d ecisi on m aking meeting, but when she failed to

1 Neither f ather i s a party to this appeal.

2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court’s ruling. Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 376, ¶ 13, 231 P.3d 377, 380 (App. 2010).

3 The Department of Child Safety has replaced the Arizona Department of Economic Security. See S.B. 1001, 51st Leg., 2d Spec. Sess. (Ariz. 2014). We will refer to the agency as “the Department.”ANGELIQUE B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3 attend the meeting, the children were removed from her care and a dependency petition was filed

.

¶4 The juvenile court subsequently found the children dependent and set the case plan as family reunification. Over the next two years, the Department offered Mother random drug testing, four referrals

for substance abuse treatment, a parent aide, supervised visits, a psychological consultation, dialectical behavior therapy c ounseling, and

tr ansportation.

¶5 Mother tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine in February 2013

. Although she participated in substance abuse treatment from March 2013 to August 2013, she relapsed

, and in July and August 2013 tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine

. Mother also failed t o participate in counseling and to attempt to obtain stable housi ng or employment.

¶6 The Department moved to change the case plan to severance and adoption at a review hearing in November 2013. After the court granted the motion, t he Department filed a motion to terminate Mother’s parental rights alleging substance abuse and fifteen months out

- of

- home placement ground s under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section s 8

- 533(B)( 3 ) and (B)(8)(c). 4

¶7 Mother , who continued t o test positive for am phetamine and methamphetamine

, 5 failed to appear for the termination hearing on September 12

, 2014, and, despite the fact that the hearing was continued

over the Department’s objection until November 18, 2014 , she still did not

appear

. 6 T he juvenile court took evidence a nd , a t the conclusion of the hearing, terminated Mother’s parental rights to the three children on the grounds alleged and found that the termination was in the children’s best

interests. The court subsequently signed and filed the written findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the court’s oral pronouncements.

4 We cite the current version s of statute s unless otherwise noted.

5 By the time the case plan was changed, Mother was only participati ng in
visits with the children.

6 Mother had notice and signed a Form 3 Notice to Parent in Termination Action, and was present when the September 12 termination hearing was

scheduled. She did not seek to excuse or explain her absence

.ANGELIQUE B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4 ¶8 Mother filed a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under

A.R.S. §§ 8

- 235, 12

- 120.21(A)(1), and

- 2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶9 Mother argues that the juvenile court erred by finding that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of her children. 7 We will affirm the juvenile court’s ruling unless it is clearly erroneous ; namely, that there is no reasonable evidence to support the fact ual findings upon which it is based. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep ’ t of Econ. Sec. , 203 Ariz. 278, ¶ 4, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002).

¶10 A best interests determination must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22, 110 P.3d 1013, 1018 (2005); A.R.S. § 8

- 533(B). “[A] determination of the [ children ’ s ] best interest must include a finding as to how the [children]

would benefit from a severance or be harmed by the continuation of the relationship.” Raymond F. v. Ariz

. Dep ’ t of Econ. Sec. , 224 Ariz. 373, 379, ¶ 30

, 231 P.3d 377, 383 ( App. 2010) ( internal citation s and quotation marks omitted). The juvenile court can also consider whether: ( 1) an adoptive plac ement is immediately available; ( 2) the existing pla cement is meeting
the needs o f the child ; and ( 3) the children are adoptable. Id

.

¶11 Mother contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a best interests finding because “[n]one of the children [we re ] in adoptive homes, and no adoptive homes have bee n identified despite the fact that

the children have been in out

- of

- home placements for over two years.” A “specific adoption plan” is not , however, a prerequisite to termination; the juvenile court may rely on evidence that a c hild is adoptable and the existing placement is meeting the child ’ s needs. Bobby G. v. Ariz

. Dep ’ t of

Econ. Sec. , 219 Ariz. 506, 511, 200 P.3d 1003, 1008 (App. 2008)

.

¶12 Here, the Department presented evidence that all three

children would benefit from sev erance and would be harmed if returned to Mother. The case manager testified that Mother had moved three or four times during the course of the dependency, demonstrating her instability. She further testified that Mother had had only a four

- month period of sobriety over the pr ior twenty

- seven months that the child ren had been in the Department ’s custody. A nd she stated that Mother was possibly still in a relationship with the b oyfriend who had abused the children and was also

7 Because Mother does not challenge the statutory basis for terminating her parental rights, we affirm those findings.ANGELIQUE B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5 using methamp hetamine and mari juana

. The case manager testified that the children were adoptable and would benefit from the terminatio n of Mother’s parental rights.

¶13 T he children’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) filed a report that the court considered, describing that the children were doi ng well in their foster placements and that their educational, medical, and dental needs were all being met. She informed the court that M.S. was in a potential permanent placement, and P.B. wanted Mother’s parental rights to be

terminated. 8 The GAL ’s report concluded by opin ing that pe rmanency was in the children’s best interests and it could be achieve d by terminatin g Mother’s parental rights.

¶14 T he evidence, as a result, supports the juvenile court ’s f inding
that termination was in the children’s best interest s because “the children are adoptable” and “[t]heir needs are being met in foster homes.”

The refore, the court did not err.

CONCLUSION

¶15 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to P.B., M.S.

, and A.S.

8 An earlier report indicated tha t P

. B

. wanted to be adopted by his foster
parents.