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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ASHLEY S., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, L.H., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 22-0121 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD 39194

The Honorable Christopher Whitten, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Michelle R. Nimmo

Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety

FILED 11-1-2022
ASHLEY S. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 Ashley S. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

terminating her parental rights to her daughter L.H., born in 2016. For 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Carlos H. (“Father”) are L.H.’s biological parents. 

Although Father’s rights were also terminated, he is not a party to this 

appeal.

¶3 The Arizona Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) first became 

involved with this family in 2016, when L.H. was born premature and 

tested positive for methadone. In 2019, DCS received a report of domestic 

violence. Mother said that Father grabbed her hair and hit her in the face, 

and that in an earlier instance he had slammed her face into some drawers. 

Mother reported that Father drinks alcohol and uses cocaine. DCS also 

observed that L.H. had “concerning behaviors” indicative of sexual abuse. 

DCS offered family preservation services, but neither parent participated.

¶4 Early in 2020, Mother was hospitalized after having a 

miscarriage. Father dropped L.H. off at the hospital to be supervised by 

Mother while he was at work. Hospital staff observed that Mother was 

dozing off and L.H. was not able to wake her up even after she slapped 

Mother across the face twice. Mother nodded off before the staff could 

administer her methadone dosage. 

¶5 Soon thereafter, DCS removed L.H. from the home and filed 

a dependency petition as to both parents. DCS alleged in part that (1) 

Mother had a history of heroin use and had been taking methadone for the 

past 15 years; (2) she had untreated mental-health issues of PTSD, 

depression, and anxiety; and (3) there was a history of domestic violence 

between Mother and Father. After Mother pled no contest, L.H. was 

adjudicated dependent in April 2020. The court approved a case plan of 

family reunification and DCS offered Mother various services, including 
ASHLEY S. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

3

substance-abuse assessment and treatment, psychological and psychiatric 

evaluations, individual counseling, parent-aide services, and supervised 

visitation.

¶6 Mother was assessed for substance-abuse treatment by 

TERROS but was not referred for further services because she was already 

engaged in services with Community Medical Services (“CMS”) and was 

being treated with methadone. She participated in drug testing through

PSI from March 2020 through July 2020, testing positive each time for 

methadone and seven times for benzodiazepines (anti-anxiety medication, 

hereinafter referred to generally as “Xanax”). Although some confusion

existed between DCS caseworkers about when and where Mother should

receive testing, after September 2020 she received regular testing through 

CMS and consistently tested positive for methadone and Xanax. In July

2021, Mother was denied her methadone dosage at CMS because she 

appeared impaired. Two months later she tested positive for cocaine, but 

claimed it was a false positive due to her use of lidocaine. 

¶7 The record is not clear on what prescriptions Mother was 

taking. In 2019, a DCS employee reported that Mother was buying Xanax

“off the streets” because her physicians stopped prescribing it after her 

miscarriage. DCS progress reports from 2021 noted multiple times that 

there was no prescription on file with DCS for Xanax even though it had 

been requested during the dependency. 

¶8 After a psychological evaluation, a psychiatrist evaluated 

Mother in August 2020 and recommended she taper off Xanax given the 

risks of combining methadone and Xanax. According to CMS reports, those 

risks include respiratory depression, overdose, and death. After a followup appointment, the psychiatrist noted that Mother was not willing to taper 

off Xanax. Mother also participated in individual counseling sessions for 

about a year, starting in July 2020. The therapist noted that Mother had

“trouble keeping up with her therapy goals.” 

¶9 Although Mother consistently attended visits and skill 

sessions, the first parent-aide service closed unsuccessfully. The parent

aide concluded that Mother had not increased her abilities to parent L.H.

and was still working on her mental health. DCS was also concerned that 

L.H. did not want to use the restroom when Mother was in the home, and 

that Mother would nod off during her visits with L.H.

¶10 Mother was referred again for the parent-aide program and 

successfully completed it in November 2021. The parent aide reported that 
ASHLEY S. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

4

Mother participated in visits and skills sessions and enhanced her 

capacities. However, before the program closed, L.H. reported that Mother 

had touched her inappropriately during a supervised visit. The court then 

ordered for in-person visitations to stop and permitted virtual visitations

only. 

¶11 Throughout the dependency, Mother and Father have lived 

together. Mother is unemployed and relies on Father for housing and 

income. Father completed a substance-abuse assessment and was 

diagnosed with mild cocaine-use disorder. He did not engage in any 

reunification services. 

¶12 In November 2021, DCS moved to terminate Mother’s 

parental rights to L.H. based on nine months’ and fifteen months’ time-incare. After a two-day termination hearing, the juvenile court granted the 

motion on both grounds and found that termination was in L.H.’s best 

interests. Mother timely appealed and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. 

§ 8-235(A).

DISCUSSION

¶13 Before the juvenile court can terminate parental rights, DCS 

must prove (1) by clear and convincing evidence at least one statutory 

ground in A.R.S. § 8-533 and (2) by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the termination is in the child’s best interests. Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child 

Safety, 240 Ariz. 282, 286, ¶ 15 (App. 2016). “We review the court’s 

termination decision for an abuse of discretion and will affirm unless no 

reasonable evidence supports the court’s findings.” Jessie D. v. Dep’t of Child 

Safety, 251 Ariz. 574, 579, ¶ 10 (2021). The juvenile court “is in the best 

position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of 

witnesses, and make appropriate findings.” Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. 

Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). If clear and convincing evidence 

supports any one ground for terminating parental rights, we need not 

address whether sufficient evidence supports the other grounds. Id. at ¶ 3. 

¶14 To meet its burden of proving the fifteen months’ ground, 

DCS was required to prove (1) it made a “diligent effort to provide 

appropriate reunification services”; (2) L.H. was in an out-of-home 

placement for a cumulative period of fifteen months or longer; (3) Mother 

did not remedy the circumstances requiring the out-of-home placement; 

and (4) “there is a substantial likelihood that the parent will not be capable 

of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near 

future.” A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). Mother challenges only the third and 
ASHLEY S. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

5

fourth requirements. She does not argue the court erred in finding that 

termination is in L.H.’s best interests. 

¶15 The juvenile court found that Mother failed to remedy the 

circumstances that contributed to L.H.’s removal from the home, which 

included “domestic violence between the parents,” Mother’s “unmanaged 

mental health issues,” her “failure to protect [L.H.] from Father’s substance 

abuse,” and Mother’s “general inability to care for [L.H.], “exacerbated by 

her long-term combined use” of methadone and Xanax. The court 

explained that Mother did not engage in any services to address domestic 

violence and failed to address her dependency on methadone and Xanax, 

even after being warned by doctors about the dangers in combining the two 

drugs. The court determined that although Mother made some progress, it 

was not enough to show she is capable of effectively parenting L.H. in the 

near future. 

¶16 Mother argues she “continues to address her history of illegal 

opiate abuse,” noting her active involvement with CMS since 2012. She 

contends her only unusual test in September 2021 was positive for cocaine,

which she claimed was based on use of an over-the-counter lidocaine

ointment. Regardless of Mother’s claim, it is undisputed that she takes 

methadone and Xanax, even after being advised by doctors of the dangers 

in combining those two drugs. And Mother does not contest the juvenile 

court’s finding that she failed to provide DCS with evidence of a 

prescription for Xanax, despite repeated requests. Without a prescription, 

DCS had no evidence that Mother was legally taking Xanax. Also, DCS 

provided documented instances where Mother was nodding off during 

visits and acting strangely. She also appeared “overmedicated” when 

reporting to her clinic to receive her methadone treatment in at least one 

instance. The record confirms that Mother has been unable to resolve her 

substance-abuse issues.

¶17 Mother asserts she has addressed her mental-health issues 

through her participation in evaluations and therapy sessions. She also 

argues she has enhanced her protective capacities as a parent, evidenced by 

her successful completion of the latest parent-aide service program. She 

contends the juvenile court ignored all this evidence when it terminated 

Mother’s parental rights. But we do not reweigh the evidence on appeal. 

See Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at 282, ¶ 12.

¶18 Consistent with the juvenile court’s ruling, nothing in the 

record supports a conclusion that Mother can provide a home environment 

for L.H. that would be different or improved from what it was like when 
ASHLEY S. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

6

the dependency was filed. Although Mother denies any history of domestic 

violence, she made reports to DCS about two incidents. A DCS caseworker 

testified that Mother and Father were still living together, that Father was 

actively using cocaine, and that neither party had tried to address the 

domestic-violence issues in their relationship. The caseworker explained 

that Mother is unemployed and relies on Father for income, and that if L.H. 

is returned to Mother’s care, L.H. would be exposed to Father’s substance 

abuse and the parents’ domestic-violence issues. Because the circumstances 

that led to L.H.’s removal from Mother’s care essentially remain unchanged

and the record shows that Mother would not be able to effectively parent 

in the near future, the juvenile court did not err in terminating her parental 

rights. 

CONCLUSION

¶19 We affirm the juvenile court’s order.