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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-JV 23-0227

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD42185

The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Jamie R. Heller

Counsel for Appellant Litzy C.

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jennifer L. Thorson, Toni M. Valadez

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

FILED 06-27-2024
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.C. and C.C.

Decision of the Court

2

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 Litzy Carvajal (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her 

parental rights as to her children E.C. and C.C., arguing the juvenile court 

erred by finding termination was in their best interests. Because the 

record supports that, by a preponderance of the evidence, termination was 

in E.C.’s and C.C.’s best interests, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. After DCS Received a Report That Mother was Positive for 

Fentanyl and THC, DCS Removed E.C. and C.C. From 

Mother and Filed a Dependency Proceeding. 

¶2 E.C. was born to Mother and a father not party to this appeal

on August 1, 2017. C.C. was born to Mother and an unknown father on

June 24, 2022. The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) received a report 

that after birth, C.C. showed signs of withdrawal and that Mother’s urine 

contained fentanyl and THC. 

¶3 While investigating, DCS interviewed Mother. Mother 

admitted she had been using fentanyl for two years and was taking five to 

eight pills a day. Mother explained she had sought treatment but 

relapsed. Mother also admitted she stopped using fentanyl when she 

found out she was pregnant with C.C. at three months but resumed at 

around five months. Mother told DCS she was then on a two to three year

probation for auto theft. Mother explained that her probation required 

her to engage in substance-abuse treatment, but that she had not sought it. 

After the interview, Mother continued testing positive for fentanyl and 

THC. 

¶4 Following the interview, DCS implemented a presentdanger plan from June 24, 2022, to July 8, 2022, but Mother still failed to 

engage in services or visit C.C. in the hospital. During this time, Mother 

was kicked out of her mother’s house on multiple occasions, continued 

using fentanyl, and could not provide for the children’s basic needs. After

the present danger plan ended, DCS placed E.C. with his paternal 

grandmother. Once C.C. was discharged from the hospital on July 20, 

2022, DCS placed her with a foster family. DCS then moved to find E.C. 

and C.C. dependent as to Mother and the juvenile court found them 

dependent. 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.C. and C.C.

Decision of the Court

3

B. Mother Failed to Engage in the Services DCS Provided,

Leading DCS to Move to Terminate Her Parental Rights. 

¶5 DCS pursued a family reunification plan. Throughout it, 

DCS offered Mother many services, including random drug testing, 

substance abuse assessment and outpatient treatment, and supervised 

visitation. Mother was also required to comply with her probation terms 

during the plan. 

¶6 Despite DCS providing these services, Mother failed to 

engage in them from July 2022 to September 2023. Mother tested positive 

for fentanyl, THC, and benzodiazepine in August 2022 and did not begin 

testing again until September 2023. DCS provided Mother with resources 

for substance abuse, informing her that Terros had beds available. Mother 

said she was going to check into detox services but DCS did not receive 

confirmation that she engaged in this service. 

¶7 DCS also referred Mother to supervised visits with her 

paternal grandmother and a DCS case aide. DCS’s case manager did not 

report concerns with the visits Mother attended; however, Mother did not 

engage in the services with the case aide despite the aide’s many attempts 

to contact Mother. Mother later failed to attend supervised visits and 

became unwelcome in paternal grandmother’s home, where E.C. lived. 

DCS provided Mother with the nurturing parenting program, in which 

Mother occasionally, but inconsistently, engaged. Mother was closed out 

of that service in October 2022. 

¶8 In October 2022, Mother was arrested when she violated her 

probation order and the police saw drug paraphernalia and “ongoing 

[f]entanyl use” in the home. After Mother’s release from jail, she 

continued violating her probation terms. For that reason, DCS moved to 

terminate her rights for chronic substance abuse, six month out-of-home 

placement for C.C., and nine month out-of-home placement for C.C. and 

E.C. 

C. After Moving to Terminate Her Rights, Mother Requested 

More Time in the Reunification Plan to Receive Services. 

¶9 Shortly after DCS moved to terminate Mother’s rights, 

Mother was released from jail in September 2023 and moved in with her 

mother. Mother then asked DCS to reinstate services. 

¶10 Mother requested random drug testing, which matched a 

term of her probation. Mother took three negative tests in September 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.C. and C.C.

Decision of the Court

4

2023, but then ceased testing. DCS re-referred Mother for supervised 

visits which Mother attended, but while at a visit in November 2023, 

Mother was overheard referring to her own prior attempt to buy drugs. 

At other supervised visits, Mother smelled like marijuana. Later in 

November, Mother was kicked out of her residence when her mother got 

a restraining order against her. Finally, DCS had re-referred Mother to 

Terros, where she was diagnosed with substance abuse, anxiety, and 

depression. Terros referred her to its Ladders program, where she 

completed an initial intake on December 5, 2023, the day before the 

severance trial. 

D. The Juvenile Court Terminated Mother’s Rights as to E.C. 

and C.C., Finding Termination in Their Best Interests. 

¶11 The court held a hearing on DCS’s motion to terminate 

Mother’s parental rights on December 6, 2023. Mother testified that her 

parental rights should not be terminated because she completed the 

Terros intake, was going to participate in the Ladders program, and had 

not been using illegal drugs since June 2023, and was thus clean for six 

months. Mother, who was diagnosed by Terros with a cannabis use 

disorder, admitted she was still using marijuana. Mother testified that 

while she was busy helping her aunt, she would prioritize drug testing 

and remaining sober. Mother testified that she had been visiting with E.C. 

and C.C. on a weekly basis since September 2023 and would continue 

visiting them. The court found Mother’s testimony unreliable because 

Mother had only tested three times in September 2023, even though she 

was aware the severance hearing was approaching. 

¶12 The court terminated Mother’s rights for prolonged 

substance abuse under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), six months out-of-home 

placement under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(b) for C.C., and nine months out-ofhome placement under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(a) for E.C. and C.C. The court 

found that DCS proved by a preponderance of the evidence termination 

was in E.C.’s and C.C.’s best interests. The court found E.C. would benefit 

from terminating Mother’s rights because E.C. was living with his 

paternal aunt who was considered an adoptive placement, and if his 

paternal aunt did not adopt him, he was adoptable. Mother did not 

contest these findings, or other, related findings relating to C.C.’s current 

adoptive placement.

¶13 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. 

§§ 8-235, 12-120.21(A)(1), and 12-2101(A)(1). 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.C. and C.C.

Decision of the Court

5

DISCUSSION

¶14 Mother appeals the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her 

parental rights as to E.C. and C.C. under A.R.S. §§ 8-533(B)(3), 8-

533(B)(8)(b), 8-533(B)(8)(a), arguing insufficient evidence demonstrated 

that termination was in their best interests. Because the juvenile court 

appropriately weighed the totality of the circumstances and evidence 

supported its conclusions, we affirm. 

The Court’s Order Terminating Mother’s Parental Rights Is

Supported By Reasonable Evidence.

¶15 We review a best-interests finding for an abuse of discretion 

and reverse only if there is “no reasonable evidence to support [the 

findings].” Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47 ¶ 8 

(App. 2004) (citations omitted). The court must find termination in the

child’s best interests by a preponderance of the evidence. Logan B. v. Dep’t 

of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 532, 537 ¶ 13 (App. 2018). When considering the 

child’s best interests, the court must consider the totality of the 

circumstances. Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146, 150 ¶¶ 12-13 

(2018). It is in a child’s best interests to terminate parental rights if the 

child would either be benefitted by terminating the relationship or 

harmed by its continuation. Id. at 150 ¶ 13. The State may show 

termination is in a child’s best interest by showing either that the child is

adoptable or is in an adoptive placement. Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 

Ariz. 1, 4 ¶ 12 (2016). 

¶16 Mother argues termination was not in E.C.’s and C.C.’s best 

interests, citing Mother’s age, her bond with E.C., and familial support 

from her aunt. Despite that, ample evidence supports the court’s contrary 

finding that termination would provide E.C. and C.C. with permanency 

and stability, which is the court’s primary concern when determining a

child’s best interests in this context. Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 150 ¶¶ 12-13. 

The court found E.C. was in an adoptive placement while living with his 

paternal aunt but if his housing changed, he was adoptable. The court 

found C.C. was in an adoptive placement with the foster family she had 

been living with since she was released from the hospital after being born 

and that she was adoptable even if they did not adopt her. The court also 

found that C.C.’s foster family was willing to facilitate visits between E.C. 

and C.C. to maintain their familial bond. The court further found there 

was no biological family member with whom C.C. could be placed. 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.C. and C.C.

Decision of the Court

6

¶17 Mother also argues the juvenile court abused its discretion 

by failing to consider that she had been engaging in rehabilitation efforts 

since September 2023. While the court may consider a parent’s 

rehabilitation in considering the child’s best interests, the court’s primary 

concern is the child’s stability and security. Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 148, 150 

¶¶ 1, 12. We defer here to the court’s finding that Mother’s testimony was 

unreliable. Id. at 151-52 ¶¶ 18-19 (explaining we defer to the juvenile 

court to determine witness credibility). The court also found Mother 

would be inconsistent in abstaining from substance use based on her 

inconsistent engagement with services while severing Mother’s parental 

rights. Mother does not dispute that finding on appeal. The record 

supports the court’s implicit conclusion that Mother’s efforts to overcome 

her substance abuse were not sufficient to make remaining with her in 

either child’s best interests.

¶18 Finally, Mother contends the court failed to make findings 

sufficient to support termination. Mother could have moved to amend the 

juvenile court’s termination order on the ground that it lacked sufficient 

findings of fact, Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 317, but did not. Her failure to do so is 

a waiver of that argument on appeal. Logan B., 244 Ariz. at 536 ¶¶ 9, 10. 

Waiver aside, the court’s findings were sufficient, as we have explained. 

CONCLUSION

¶19 For these reasons, we affirm.