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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JERICA S., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, J.X., J.M., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 19-0124

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD33545

The Honorable Joseph C. Kreamer, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

David W. Bell Attorney at Law, Higley

By David W. Bell

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Sandra L. Nahigian

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 12-19-2019
JERICA S. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Maurice Portley joined.1

H O W E, Judge:

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

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

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother has four children; only the two youngest are subject 

to the termination order on appeal. Mother had a sixteen-year history of 

using methamphetamine and no stable housing or employment. In 

December 2016, police arrested Mother after she drove while intoxicated in

a stolen vehicle with the children and then tried to purchase merchandise 

with a stolen credit card. According to police, Mother still appeared

intoxicated during the arrest and behaved erratically. She admitted to 

recently having used methamphetamine and marijuana. She also admitted 

to past mental illness and suicidal ideations. The Department of Child 

Safety took custody of her children and petitioned for dependency because 

her arrest left the children without a legal caregiver. Later that month, the 

juvenile court found the children dependent and set a case plan of family 

reunification.

¶3 Mother was released soon after her arrest but continued 

abusing substances. The Department referred her for substance-abuse 

testing and treatment and also agreed to provide her with a psychological 

evaluation and a parent aide once she demonstrated 30 days’ sobriety.

Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine at the outset of 

the dependency. She again tested positive for methamphetamine in January 

2017. Mother began using heroin a month later, while continuing to use

methamphetamine. She tested positive for methamphetamine once more in 

 

1 The Honorable Maurice Portley, Retired Judge of the Arizona Court 

of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant 

to Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution.
JERICA S. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

October 2017. Mother attended some substance-abuse treatment programs 

during the dependency but never completed them and always relapsed. 

Furthermore, Mother continued her criminal conduct by stealing property 

and credit cards and using the stolen credit cards to purchase goods. 

Mother nevertheless consistently participated in visits. 

¶4 In November 2017, Mother was jailed and eventually 

sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. She communicated with the 

children in jail through phone calls and sent them cards and letters. The 

children also visited Mother in jail on a monthly basis from September 2018 

through the termination hearing. According to Mother, she also 

participated in several classes offered through the Maricopa County Jail 

and the Arizona Department of Corrections. In September 2018, the 

superior court changed the case plan to severance and adoption, and the 

Department moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights under the lengthof-sentence and fifteen-month out-of-home placement grounds.

¶5 The juvenile court held a contested termination hearing in 

February 2019 and later issued a ruling terminating Mother’s parental 

rights on the grounds alleged. Mother timely appealed the order. 

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal, Mother challenges only one of two statutory 

grounds for termination in the superior court’s decision. She contests the 

length-of-sentence ground, but not fifteen-month out-of-home placement 

ground. The Department asserts that because Mother did not challenge the 

court’s ruling under the fifteen-month out-of-home placement ground, she 

has waived her challenge to the termination order on appeal. 

¶7 The juvenile court must find “[e]vidence sufficient to justify 

the termination of the parent-child relationship” under “any one of the”

statutory grounds enumerated under A.R.S. § 8–533(B). Accordingly, if a 

parent fails to challenge a termination ground on appeal, the parent “has 

abandoned and waived any contention that the court erred in granting 

severance” under the unchallenged ground. Crystal E. v. Dep’t of Child 

Safety, 241 Ariz. 576, 577 ¶ 5 (App. 2017); see also Michelle M. v. Dep’t of Child 

Safety, 243 Ariz. 64, 66 ¶ 6 (App. 2017) (“Mother does not challenge the 

finding that DCS proved both statutory grounds for severance, meaning 

those issues are waived.”). Because Mother does not challenge the 

termination order under the fifteen-month out-of-home placement ground, 

we affirm based on that ground and need not address the 

length-of-sentence ground.
JERICA S. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 Mother also argues that because the juvenile court erred in its 

analysis under the length-of-sentence termination ground, the court “was 

therefore unable to make a proper decision regarding the children’s best 

interests.” But Mother does not develop her argument. The record shows 

that the court recognized the bond between Mother and the children and 

the efforts Mother had made to maintain a relationship with them while 

incarcerated. Despite this, the court also found that severance would benefit 

the children and was in their best interests. The court found the children 

were adoptable, and three potential adoptive placements existed at the time 

of the termination hearing. The court further found that placement was 

meeting the children’s needs, the children were happy and wished to be 

adopted, and they would benefit from permanency. Reasonable evidence 

in the record supports these findings.

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.