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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.L. AND J.L.

No. 1 CA-JV 22-0197

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD39232

The Honorable Suzanne Scheiner Marwil, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek, P.C., Scottsdale

By John L. Popilek

Counsel for Appellant

The Huff Law Firm, PLLC, Tucson

By Laura J. Huff, Daniel R. Huff

Co-Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Emily M. Stokes

Co-Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

Denise L. Carroll Attorney at Law, Scottsdale

By Denise L. Carroll

Counsel for Appellees J.L. and J.L.

FILED 1-17-2023
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.L., et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Eric L. (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to his children. For the following reasons, 

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

¶2 As relevant here, Father and Sherry S. (“Mother3”) had two

children, J.L., born in 2007, and J.L., born in 2009. Father has abused alcohol 

on and off since he was eight years old. In March 2020, the Department of 

Child Safety (“DCS”) took custody of the children and petitioned for a 

dependency because Mother was abusing alcohol and had allegedly abused 

one of the children.

¶3 At that time, Father was attending an intensive outpatient 

substance-abuse and mental-health treatment program and was unable to 

1 Judge Peter B. Swann was a sitting member of this court when the 

matter was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective 

November 28, 2022. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6, 

Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-145, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme 

Court has designated Judge Swann as a judge pro tempore in the Court of 

Appeals for the purpose of participating in the resolution of cases assigned 

to this panel during his term in office and the period during which his 

vacancy remains open and for the duration of Administrative Order 2022-

162.

2 “We review an order terminating a parent’s relationship with his or 

her child . . . in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s 

ruling.” Calvin B. v. Brittany B., 232 Ariz. 292, 296, ¶ 17 (App. 2013).

3 The superior court also terminated Mother’s parental rights to the 

children. Mother is not a party to this appeal.
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.L., et al.

Decision of the Court

3

provide for the children’s basic needs. The superior court eventually 

adjudicated the children dependent after Father pled no contest to the 

petition. Father relapsed after completing his treatment program and

abused alcohol for the next twenty-two months.

¶4 Meanwhile, DCS referred Father for substance-abuse testing 

and treatment, two parent aides with visitation, and a family support 

partner. He refused to participate in substance-abuse treatment and the

family support partner. He minimally participated in substance-abuse 

testing and the parent-aide service. Furthermore, he showed up intoxicated 

to a few visits and frequently missed them altogether.

¶5 In October 2020, while the dependency proceedings were 

pending, Father was charged with aggravated driving under the influence

of alcohol.

4 In summer 2021, Father pled guilty to his fifth conviction for 

driving under the influence of alcohol and was sentenced to four months of 

incarceration and three years of probation. Still, he continued abusing 

alcohol through the end of 2021. Around this time, the children’s guardian 

ad litem moved to terminate Father’s parental rights under the chronic 

substance-abuse and nine-month and fifteen-month out-of-home 

placement grounds. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), (8)(a), (c).

¶6 In 2022, as a mandatory term of probation, Father completed

an intensive outpatient substance-abuse program through his own 

provider. He also regularly attended twelve-step meetings and obtained a 

sponsor. In June, Father was incarcerated pursuant to his plea. After a trial, 

the superior court terminated Father’s parental rights on the grounds 

alleged. Father appealed. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. 

§ 8-235(A).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Father argues that insufficient evidence supports the superior 

court’s finding under the nine-month out-of-home placement ground that 

he substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy the circumstances 

that caused the children to be in an out-of-home placement. See A.R.S. § 8-

533(B)(8)(a). A parent’s right to custody and control of his own child, while 

fundamental, is not absolute. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 

246, 248-49, ¶¶ 11-12 (2000). Termination of a parental relationship may be 

warranted where the State proves at least one statutory ground under 

A.R.S. § 8-533 by “clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 249, ¶ 12. Clear 

4 Father testified the charges were dismissed.
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.L., et al.

Decision of the Court

4

and convincing means the grounds for termination are “highly probable or 

reasonably certain.” Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284-85, ¶ 25 (2005)

(quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 577 (1982)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). The court must also find termination is in the child’s best 

interests by a preponderance of the evidence. Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 285, ¶ 29.

¶8 This court “will accept the juvenile court’s findings of fact 

unless no reasonable evidence supports those findings” and will affirm a 

termination order unless it is clearly erroneous. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of 

Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). This court does not reweigh 

the evidence but “look[s] only to determine if there is evidence to sustain 

the court’s ruling.” Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, 

¶ 8 (App. 2004).

¶9 The juvenile court may terminate parental rights under A.R.S. 

§ 8-533(B)(8)(a) if DCS “has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate 

reunification services” and the child “has been in an out-of-home placement 

for a cumulative total period of nine months or longer pursuant to court 

order . . . and the parent has substantially neglected or willfully refused to 

remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home 

placement.” The focus of the nine-month ground is on “the level of the 

parent’s effort to cure the circumstances rather than the parent’s success in 

actually doing so.” Marina P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 326, 329, 

¶ 20 (App. 2007).

¶10 Here, the court found “Father has failed to test through PSI 

and demonstrate a prolonged period of sobriety through consistent, 

negative and non-missed drug testing.” Reasonable evidence supports this 

finding.

¶11 Father has a twenty-nine-year history of substance abuse that 

includes multiple arrests for driving under the influence and previous 

failed attempts to remain sober. For twenty-two months of the

dependency, Father continued to abuse alcohol; minimally participated in 

drug and alcohol testing, the parent-aide service, and visitation; and 

refused all other services from DCS.

¶12 Nonetheless, Father contends he made sufficient efforts to 

remedy the circumstances because he had achieved six-and-one-half

months of sobriety by the time of trial. The superior court considered his 

recent efforts but found although “he has been sober for some months,” his 

sobriety was “only [achieved] with the specter of incarceration and 

treatment ordered by the criminal court hanging over him.” Father
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.L., et al.

Decision of the Court

5

“continued to fixate on whether [alcohol testing] was court ordered or 

whether DUI charges were filed rather than the fact that he continued to 

abuse alcohol.” And although sober, Father was “still more than a year 

away from being able to fulfill caregiving responsibilities if his sobriety 

holds.”

¶13 Indeed, as a term of his probation, Father completed an 

intensive outpatient treatment program two months before trial, and he

testified he had remained sober since December 30, 2021. Notwithstanding 

his claim, he submitted only two alcohol and drug tests between January 

and July 2022. Thus, his compliance with alcohol and drug testing in the 

six months leading up to trial was less than 0.1%, which clearly amounts to 

substantial neglect. See Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 

571, 576 (App. 1994) (“[W]hen a [parent] . . . makes only sporadic, aborted 

attempts to remedy” such circumstances, “a trial court is well within its 

discretion in finding substantial neglect and terminating parental rights on 

that basis . . . .”). As the case manager testified, such minimal compliance

leaves no way to gauge the progress of Father’s sobriety, and regardless, he 

needed to demonstrate prolonged sobriety, employment, and housing 

stability outside of a structured setting, which could take up to a year after 

his incarceration. Id. (“Termination is not limited to those who have 

completely neglected or willfully refused to remedy such circumstances.”).

¶14 Because reasonable evidence supports the court’s 

determination that Father substantially neglected or willfully refused to 

remedy the circumstances causing the children’s out-of-home placement,

we will not reweigh that determination on appeal. See Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at

282, ¶ 12 (“The resolution of such conflicts in the evidence is uniquely the 

province of the juvenile court as the trier of fact; we do not re-weigh the 

evidence on review.”).

¶15 The record contains sufficient evidence to support the court’s 

termination order based on the nine-month out-of-home placement ground 

DCS asserted, and the best interests findings. See Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 248-

49, ¶ 12 (termination of a parental relationship may be warranted where the 

court finds at least one § 8-533 statutory ground for termination by clear 

and convincing evidence); Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 284, ¶ 22 (the court must also 

find termination is in the child’s best interests by a preponderance of the 

evidence). Therefore, we need not address further Father’s challenges to 

the termination under the chronic substance-abuse and fifteen-month outof-home placement grounds.
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.L., et al.

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶16 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.