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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ERIKA C., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, I.C., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0343

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JS20524

JD37374

The Honorable David O. Cunanan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek PC, Scottsdale

By John L. Popilek

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Emily M. Stokes

Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety

FILED 4-15-2021
ERIKA C. v. DCS, I.C.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Erika C. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

terminating her parental rights to I.C. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Cruz T. (“Father”) are minors and the natural 

parents of I.C. In April 2019, I.C. was born substance exposed to marijuana. 

The Department of Child Safety investigated and found that Mother and

Father also engaged in domestic violence in I.C.’s presence. Consequently, 

the Department took custody of I.C. and petitioned for dependency. The 

juvenile court later found I.C. dependent and set a case plan for family 

reunification.

¶3 The Department was concerned that Mother had a violent 

relationship with Father, used marijuana, and was unable to provide for 

I.C. To assist Mother in remedying these issues, the Department referred 

her for substance-abuse testing and treatment, a psychological evaluation, 

counseling, a parent aide, and transportation assistance. 

¶4 Regarding substance-abuse testing, Mother initially tested 

negative but then tested inconsistently, missing several randomly assigned 

tests. Mother did not test at all between September and December 2019, and 

her referral closed. Meanwhile, in May 2019, the Department referred 

Mother to TERROS for a substance-abuse evaluation. During her 

evaluation, Mother admitted to a history of domestic violence with Father, 

though she claimed that they were no longer together and had no contact 

with each other. She also reported that she used marijuana for stress and 

sleep but claimed that she had stopped using when she discovered that she 

was pregnant with I.C. The evaluator diagnosed Mother with moderate 

cannabis-use disorder and recommended that she enroll in a standard 

outpatient program for teenagers which included individual therapy. 

Mother failed to do so, however, and her referral closed in September 2019. 
ERIKA C. v. DCS, I.C.

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 As for the other services that the Department offered her,

Mother did not complete the psychological evaluation or participate in 

domestic-violence counseling. Nor did she fully engage in the parent-aide 

service. Although Mother interacted appropriately with I.C. during her 

visits, she tended to become overwhelmed or flustered when he was fussy 

or crying, and she relied heavily on her family members to meet his needs. 

She also missed several visits and was eventually required to call ahead to

confirm her attendance. Her parent-aide referral unsuccessfully closed 

because she failed to meet the program goals. By December 2019, Mother 

had closed out of every reunification service that the Department had 

offered her. 

¶6 After Mother’s parent-aide referral closed, she received visits 

through a Department case aide until January 2020, when the Department 

referred her to Baio Enterprises, which provided visits within walking 

distance of her home. Her attendance, however, did not improve, and that 

referral also closed. In February 2020, the Department referred Mother to 

TERROS again for substance-abuse treatment and counseling, but Mother 

did not engage. 

¶7 Meanwhile, Mother and Father continued their violent 

relationship. During one physical altercation, Father choked and punched 

Mother and pushed her off a balcony, requiring paramedics to be called. 

Mother chose not to prosecute Father and did not obtain a restraining order. 

Mother admitted that during another incident, Father had punched her in 

the head twice, but she did not call the police. In February 2020, Father 

punched Mother in the face and broke her cell phone. When police 

investigated, both Mother and the landlord told them that Mother and 

Father were living together in a rented room. Again, Mother chose not to 

prosecute Father or obtain an order of protection after this incident. 

¶8 Accordingly, in March 2020, the juvenile court added a 

concurrent case plan of severance and adoption. That same month, Mother 

moved to Mexico to live with her mother, who had recently been deported. 

The Department case manager asked Mother for her address so she could 

set up services in Mexico, but Mother did not respond. In April 2020, 

Mother moved back to Arizona and emailed the case manager. The case 

manager tried to respond to Mother but could not reach her through May. 

Nevertheless, the Department again referred her for substance-abuse 

testing and treatment, counseling, and visitation. 

¶9 In June 2020, the Department petitioned to terminate 

Mother’s parental rights on grounds of chronic substance abuse and 
ERIKA C. v. DCS, I.C.

Decision of the Court

4

six- and nine-months’ out-of-home placement. That same month, Mother 

completed her first drug test since August 2019, and tested positive for 

THC. Over the rest of June, Mother missed a few scheduled tests and tested 

positive twice more for THC. In early July, Mother tried to take a 

hair-follicle test, but the testing company would not allow her to complete 

it because she was not accompanied by a parent or guardian. Mother did 

not complete another drug test after that. Mother also attended some visits 

and completed an intake for counseling but did not attend any counseling 

sessions. 

¶10 Following a termination hearing, the juvenile court 

terminated Mother’s parental rights on all the alleged grounds. Mother 

timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶11 Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred by terminating 

her parental rights because her only substance-abuse issue involved

marijuana, and she faced unique challenges that undermined her ability to 

participate in services. For these reasons, Mother argues that the juvenile

court should have given her additional time to complete the case plan. 

¶12 A parent’s right to custody and control of her own child, 

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

Ariz. 246, 248–49 ¶¶ 11–12 (2000). Severance of a parental relationship may 

be warranted when the state proves one statutory ground under A.R.S. 

§ 8-533 by “clear and convincing evidence.” Id. “Clear 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). The court

also must find that severance is in the child’s best interest by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 285 ¶ 29.

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

unless no reasonable evidence supports those findings, and we will affirm 

a severance order unless it is clearly erroneous.” Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of 

Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280 ¶ 4 (App. 2002). We do not reweigh the 

evidence, but “look 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). 

¶14 The juvenile court may terminate parental rights to a child 

who is younger than three years of age on the six-month out-of-home 

placement ground if “the parent has substantially neglected or wilfully 

refused to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an 
ERIKA C. v. DCS, I.C.

Decision of the Court

5

out-of-home placement, including refusal to participate in reunification 

services offered by” the Department. A.R.S. § 8–533(b). This termination 

ground focuses on the parent’s “effort to cure the circumstances rather than 

the parent’s success in actually doing so” and is based on the circumstances 

“existing at the time of the severance.” Marina P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 

214 Ariz. 326, 329–30 ¶¶ 20, 22 (App. 2007). Termination is appropriate 

when a parent fails to make “appreciable, good faith efforts to comply with 

remedial programs” or “makes only sporadic, aborted attempts to remedy” 

the circumstances causing the out-of-home placement. Maricopa Cty. Juv. 

Action No. JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 571, 576 (App. 1994).

¶15 Here, the juvenile court found that Mother substantially 

neglected or willfully refused to engage in reunification services, in 

particular the services aimed at helping her remedy her substance-abuse 

and domestic-violence issues. Mother does not specifically challenge these 

findings, and they are supported by reasonable evidence in the record. 

¶16 Instead, Mother argues that her marijuana use should not be 

the basis for the termination order because she was using it for depression 

and anxiety, her most recent positive tests were inaccurate, and she was 

unable to complete a hair-follicle test. Mother, however, did not have a 

medical marijuana card or a designated caregiver under the Arizona 

Medical Marijuana Act. See A.R.S. § 36–2801(2), (5). Nor was there evidence 

that she was diagnosed with a “debilitating medical condition” as the Act 

requires. See A.R.S. § 36–2801(3). Her use of marijuana therefore remained 

illegal, and moreover, she and I.C. tested positive for THC at his birth. 

Considering these facts, the Department reasonably required Mother to 

comply with substance-abuse testing and treatment. Then, even knowing 

substance abuse was one of the Department’s concerns, Mother used 

marijuana in March 2020, while she was in Mexico. 

¶17 As she did during the termination hearing, Mother disputes 

her three positive tests in June 2020, and contends that she did not use 

marijuana after she returned from Mexico. But the juvenile court

considered and apparently rejected Mother’s testimony to that effect. See 

Mary Lou C., 207 Ariz. at 47 ¶ 8 (this Court does not reweigh the evidence 

on appeal). Mother also asserts that she wanted to take a hair-follicle test to 

prove her sobriety but could not do so for reasons beyond her control.

However, Mother had over a year of opportunities to show her sobriety 

through urinalysis testing, including opportunities to test after her positive 

results in June 2020, and she did not do so. 
ERIKA C. v. DCS, I.C.

Decision of the Court

6

¶18 Moreover, Mother’s arguments brush over her 

domestic-violence issues with Father, which she also failed to remedy. The 

record is clear that Father assaulted Mother multiple times even after I.C. 

was removed from her care. She did not engage in counseling designed to 

address these issues, and she had contact with Father even after he severely 

injured her. She also actively resisted assisting police in prosecuting Father 

or obtaining an order of protection. At the termination hearing, Mother 

minimized the February 2020 domestic violence incident, denying that 

Father had punched her in the face or that they were living together at the 

time—both facts that she had previously admitted to police. Reasonable 

evidence supports the juvenile court’s order terminating Mother’s parental 

rights on the six-month out-of-home placement ground and we need not 

address the other termination grounds. See Crystal E. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 

241 Ariz. 576, 578 ¶ 5 (App. 2017).1

CONCLUSION

¶19 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

1 Mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s finding that 

termination of her parental rights was in I.C.’s best interests.