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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.K.

No. 1 CA

- JV 22

- 0201

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD39129 The Honorable Todd F. Lang
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
David W. Bell Attorney at Law
, Higley By David W. Bell Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office
, Tucson By Jennifer R. Blum C ounsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety FILED 3-2-2023IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.K. Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

W E I N Z W E I G , Judge:

¶1 Stephanie M. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order terminating her parental rights to C.K. (“Child”)

. W e affirm

.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother is the biological parent of Child, born in October 200 9

. T he Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) removed Child from Mother’s care after Mother was hospitalized for mental illness in February 2019

. At that time, Mother warned that she and Child were being “hunted,” and reported that voices in her head told her to “ cut her and [Child ’s ] wrist [s]

. ” Child was placed in a foster home and Mother did not contest the dependency petition.

¶3 Over the next three years, DCS provided Mother with two psychological evaluations
, two psychiatric evaluation s , medication monitoring, individual therapy, three parent

- aide referrals, parenting classes, and visitation. Mother closed out unsuccessfully from all three referrals for parent

- aide services
, and she never completed individual therapy. She often denied having mental hea l th problems and refused to take her prescribed medication.

¶4 Mother denied any history of mental illness at the first psychological evaluation in March 2019 and declined psychotropic medication. The psychologist concluded that Child was “at an elevated risk for neglect, including failure to protect; emotional abuse; behavioral issues due to a dysfunctional milieu; involvement in delusions; [and] shared delusions,” adding that “physical harm” was possible “if the client acts on her hallucinations and/or delus ions,” and psychiatric treatment “appeared to be critical” to Mother’s stability. That same month, a psychiatrist diagnosed Mother with borderline personality disorder and post

- traumatic stress disorder

. ¶5 At the second psychological evaluat ion in April 2 021 , a psychologist reported that Mother had “significant thought dysfunction,”IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.K. Decision of the Court

3 generalized anxiety disorder, and “traits of schizoid and paranoid personality.”

¶6 The psychologist recommended that Mother engage in Ph.D.

- level counseling , which Mother star ted in February 2022 . The Ph.D.

- level therapist diagnosed Mother with paranoid personality and delusional disorder s

. Mother attended therapy for several months before the termination hearing, but she struggled to control her outbursts and did not recogn ize her delusions.

¶7 In March 2022, DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights on grounds of mental illness and fifteen

- month s out

- of

- home placement. The court held a termination hearing in June 2022 and terminated Mother’s parental rights on both gr ounds. The court also found DCS made reasonable efforts to provide reunification services. Mother appeal ed

. We have jurisdiction

. See A.R.S. § § 8

- 235(A )
, 12

- 120.21(A)(1),

- 2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶8 A p arent ’ s right to custody and control of her child is fundamental but not absolute

. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 196 Ariz. 246, 248

– 49, ¶¶ 11

– 12 (2000). To terminate parental rights, the superior court must find at least one statutory ground under A.R .S. § 8

- 533(B) by clear and convincing evidence
, and must find that termination is in the child ’ s best interests by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 249, ¶ 12

. ¶9 Moreover, when moving to terminate a parent

- child relationship on grounds of out

- of

- home placement, DCS must prove it

“ made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services .” A.R.S. § 8

- 533(B)(8). To satisfy this requirement, DCS must “undertake

mea sures with a reasonable prospect of success” and “provide a parent with the time and opportunity to participate in programs designed to improve the parent ’ s ability to care for the child.” Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 193 Ariz. 185, 192, ¶ ¶ 3 4, 37 (App. 1999).

¶10 Mother contends that DCS did not make diligent reunification efforts. We will affirm the court ’ s decision if supported by reasonable evidence, Jennifer B. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 189 Ariz. 553, 555 (App. 1997), and accept the c ourt ’ s factual findings if reasonable evidence supports them
, Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F. , 239 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9 (2016).

¶11 The superior court found that Mother received ample services in this case, and that DCS has “made repeated, sincere and serious effortsIN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.K. Decision of the Court

4 t o provide [her] with the services needed for her to address her mental health issues and parenting skills deficiencies,” but that “Mother has failed to take advantage of these opportunities and has failed to make significant progress.”

¶12 The record has reasonable evidence to support these findings. DCS provided Mother with a multitude of services over the three

- year dependency, each designed to give Mother insight into her mental health and parenting issues. Mother resisted many of the s ervices. She denied or minimized her mental illness, and either refused medication or took it inconsistently, which prevented her from being able to regulate her emotions.

¶13 Mother stresses that she received only four months of Ph.D.

- level counseling bef ore termination, but we examine the services Mother received over the entire dependency. See Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety , 247 Ariz. 9, 26, ¶ 69 (App. 2019) ( “[T] he court was required to examine not only the final months but the entire dependency. ” ) . Beyond that, Mother was often erratic during th ose counseling sessions and refus ed to acknowledge her mental health issues . The Ph.D. therapist testified that Mother did not show progress.

CONCLUSION

¶14 W e affirm

.