I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO
J O R D A N C ., J E S S E C ., K A IL Y N N C ., a n d M IC H E L E C ., A pp el l ants ,

v. AR I Z ONA DE P AR T M E NT OF E CO NOMI C S E CU RI T Y, K E R R Y C ., a n d K IM B E R L Y C ., A pp el l ees, and M A U R E E N O ., Interv en o r. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- J V 2009- 0019

2 C A
- J V 2009- 0020 ( C ons ol i dat ed) DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. 16849100 H onor abl e V i r gi ni a C
. K el l y , J udge

REV ERSED
C h ild A d v o c a c yC lin ic B y Paul D
. B ennett , a cl i ni cal pr ofes s orappea r i ng underR ul e 38( d) , A r i z. R
. Sup. C t . , and A lex a n d ra L u k ic a n d G e m m a Z a n o w sk i, stud en ts certi fied p u rsua n t t o R u le 38 (d), A r i z. R
. Sup. C t . T ucs on A tto rn e y s f

o r A p p e llan ts J o r d a n C. , J e s s e C. , a n d Ka i l yn n C.

N O V 10 2009 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWOSect i o n 8 -53 3( B ) ( 8) w as amended i n 2008, and form er§ 8- 533( B ) ( 8) ( b) has been 1 re n u m b e re d a s § 8 -5 3 3 (B )(8 )(c ). 2 0 0 8 A riz
. S e s s . L a w s , c h . 1 9 8 , § 2 . W e re f e r in th is deci s i on t o t he pr ovi s i on curr ent l yi n for ce. 2 Nu c c i o & Sh i r l y , P
. C. B yJe a n n e S h irly
T err yG oddar d, A r i zona A t t or neyG ener al B yPenni e J
. W ambol dt a n d Da wn R. W i l l i a ms

F re d e ric k S . K lein

M ar go A m r i tD onal ds on T ucs on At t o rn e y s f

o rAp p e l l a n tM i c h e l e C.

P re sc o tt T ucs on A t t orney s forA ppel l ee A r i zona D e p a rtm e n t o f

E c o n o m ic S e c u rity

T ucs on A t t orneyforA ppel l ees Ke r r yC. a n d Ki mb e r l yC.

T ucs on A t t orneyforI nt ervenor
V Á S Q U E Z , J udge. ¶1 M i chel e C
. and thr ee of herchi l dr en, J es s e, J or dan, and K ai l ynn ( t he O l der Ch i l d r e n ) , a p p e a l t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ’ s o r d e r t e r mi n a t i n g M i c h e l e ’ s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o h e rt wo y ounges tchi l dr en, s i x- y ear - ol d K err yand four

- y ea r-old K i m ber l y . T he courtt erm i nat ed M i chel e’ s par ent al r i ght s on t he gr ound s he had be en unabl e t o r emedythe ci r cumst ance s t hat
caus ed K err yand K i m ber l yt o r emai n i n an out-of

- hom e pl ace m entforfi ft een mont hs or l ongerand t her e w as a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood s he w oul d be unabl e t o par entthem i n the nea r f u tu re . See A
. R
. S
. § 8 -533(B )( 8)(c ). T h e cou rtal so fou nd t erm i nati on t o b e i n the gi rl s’ 1 besti nter est s.A D E S h a s c h a llen g e d th e sta n d in g o f th e O ld e r C h ild re n to a p p e a l th e ju v e n ile 2 cour t ’ s rul i ng. W e agr ee w i t h t hem, how ever , thatA D E S w ai ved thi s ar gum entbyfai l i ng to o b je c t to th e ir p a rt ic ip a tio n a t th e te rm in a tio n h e a ri n g . S e e T o rr ez v . S ta te Fa rm Mu t. , 130 A ri z. 22 3 , 2 2 5 n . 2 , 6 3 5 P
. 2 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 3 n . 2 (A p p . 1 9 8 1 ). 3 ¶2 M ich e le a n d th e O ld e r C h ild re n a rg u e th e A riz o n a D e p a rtm e n t o f E c o n o m ic Secur i t y( A D E S) fai l ed t o m eet i t s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng w i t h cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hat ( 1) M i chele w as unab l e t o p arenteffecti velyatthe t i m e of the heari ng , (2) there w as a
su b stan ti al l ikeliho o d sh e w o u ld b e inc ap ab le of ex erc isi n g p rop erand ef fe cti v e p are n tal ca re i n t he nea r futur e, and ( 3) A D E S ha d m ade a di l i genteff or tt o pr ovi de appr opr i at e s ervi ces to re u n if yK e rrya n d K im b e rlyw ith M ich e le. T h e O ld e r C h ild re n a ls o a rg u e th e ju v e n ile 2

cou rterr ed in fi nd i ng t erm i nati on w as in t he best i nter est s o f K erryand K i m berl y . B ecause
w e agr ee the evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tanyal l eged st atuto rygr ound for term inating M iche le’s pa ren tal ri g h ts t o K erryan d K im b erly , w e re v erse the c o u rt ’s ord er. I . Fac t s and Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound ¶3 I n M ar ch 2007, A D E S fi l ed a pet i t i on al l egi ng thatthen ni ne- y ear - ol d J or dan,
e ig h t-y e a r-o ld Je ss e , six -y e a r-o ld K a ilyn n , thr e e -y e a r-o ld K e rryC ., a n d tw o -y e a r-o ld K i m ber l yC
. w ere d ep en dentchi l dr en. T he chi l dr en pr evi ous l yhad bee n t he s ubj ect s of a dep end encyproceed i ng i nit i at ed in M a rc h 2 00 4, du e, i n p art , t o thei r par ents ’
m e th a m p h e tam in e u se . T h a t d e p e n d e n c y h a d b e e n d ism iss e d in M a rc h 2 0 0 6 a f ter th e p a re n ts successful l ycom plet ed thei r cas e plans. ¶4 I n M ay2007, M i chel e admi t t ed the al l egat i ons i n an amended depe ndency pet i t i on, i ncl udi ng al l egat i ons s h e h a dt e s t ed pos i t i ve form ethamphet ami ne us e on M ar ch 26,J es s e C
. , Sr
. w as i ncar cer at ed at t he t i m e of t he t erm i nat i on hear i ng. H e r el i nqui s hed 3 h is pa ren tal ri g h ts t o K err y a n d K im b erlyo n N o v em b er 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , an d the ju v en il e c o u rt ter m in a ted h is p a re n tal rig h ts o n D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 . H e is n o t a p a rtyto th is a p p e a l. 4 butnots i nce; t he chi l dr en’ s father , J es s e C
. , Sr
. had r el aps ed i nt o m ethamphet ami ne abus e; t he coupl e had r ece nt l yengage d i n dom es t i c vi ol ence ; and M i chel e had no s t abl e hous i ng or
e m p lo ym e n t an d c o u ld n o t ca re f o r th e c h ild re n a n d , a s a re su lt, h a d lef t K e rry , w h o is d ev elop m en t al l ydel ay ed , w ith the c h il d ren ’s pa terna l grea t- g ran d m o ther. T h e juv en il e c o u rt adj udi cat ed the chi l dr en depe ndentand appr oved a c as e pl an goal of r euni fi cat i on. 3 ¶5 I n J ul y , in c om pl i ance w i t h hercas e pl an t as ks , M i chel e part i ci pat ed i n a ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on conduct ed byD r . L orr a i n e Rol l i n s . I n hereval uat i on r epor t , R ol l i ns opi ned that M i chel e coul d not “ade quat el y car e forherchi l dr en att hi s t i m e due t o herhi gh lev e l o f d e f

e n siv e n e ss ” a n d n e e d e d “ to m a k e g e n u in e c h a n g e th r o u g h th e ra p e u tic in ter v e n tio n .” R o lli n s e m p h a siz e d th e n e e d f o r “ d ire c t as se ss m e n t o f th e p a re n t-c h ild
re lati o n s h ip s to g a u g e th e m a n d [ M ich e le’ s] p a re n tin g sk ill s.” S h e w ro te, “ It is q u ite
conce i vabl e t hat [M i chel e] m ay not be abl e t o par ental l of herchi l dr en ( and perhaps none
o f h e r c h ild re n ) a d e q u a te ly. H e r p ro g re s s a n d re s p o n s e to [ re c o m m e n d e d ] in te rv e n tio n s . . . and anyi nt ervent i on r ecomm ended bythe di r ectas s es s m entof herpar ent i ng r el at i ons hi ps wi t h h e rc h i l d r e n wi l l l i k e l yd e t e r mi n e ” h e ra b i l i t yt o p a r e n to n e o rmo r e o f th e m. As interve n ti o n serv ices in ad d it ion to the “ d ir ec t assessm en t of the m o ther-ch il d relati o n sh ip[ ]” bet w een M i chel e and e ach of herchi l dr en, R ol l i ns r ecomm ended M i chel e be of fer ed and par t i ci pat e i n ongoi ng r andom drug and al cohol s cr eeni ng, s ubs t ance abus e tr eatm entand anIn a d d iti o n to K e rry ’s d e v e lo p m e n tal d e lays, Jo rd a n h a d b e e n “ d iag n o se d w ith 4 [att ent i on defi ci thyper act i vi t ydi s or der ] , angeri ssue s , i ns ecur e att achmentand dep res si ve/m anic t end encies , ” and Jess e had been fou nd t o h ave an ger m anag em ent i ssues. A s of A ugus t2007, J or dan w as pl ace d w i t h hi s m at ernal gr an d par ent s ; J es s e, 5 K ai l ynn, and K err yw er e pl aced w it h thei rpat ernal gr eat - gr andmot her ; and K i m ber l yw as p lac e d w ith M ich e le’ s co u sin a n d h is w if e . In S e p tem b e r, Jo rd a n a n d Je ss e w e re m o v e d to t her apeut i c fos t er car e. K ai l ynn j oi ned J es s e i n hi s t her apeut i c fos t erhom e i n February2008. T hu s, byM arch 20 08 , on l yK erryand K i m berl yrem ai ned w i t h rel at i ves. 5 aft er car e s uppor tgr oup, par ent i ng i ns t ruct i on, i ndi vi dual t her apy , and domest i c vi ol ence g r o u p t h e r a p y. ¶6 I n A ugus t2007, C hi l d Pr o te ct i ve Servi ces ( C PS) c as e managerM i chae l J oos t en, w ho had al s o b een as s i gned as the fa m i l y ’ s cas e managerdur i ng t he pr evi ous d e p e n d e n c yp ro c e e d in g , rep o rte d h is c o n c e rn s th a t M ich e le “ [ m ig h t] n o t b e a b le to s o le ly care for al l fi ve ch i l dren, ” part i cular l yi n l i gh tof “the i ssues that K erry , Jord[a]n and Jess e Jr. c o n tin u e to h a v e .” B u t, h e w ro te, “ O n th e p o sitiv e sid e . . . , th e re a re re lativ e p lac e m e n ts 4 th a t ar e w ill in g a n d a b le to c a re f o r th e c h il d r e n a n d s ti ll k e e p a re latio n sh ip w ith b o th par ent s . ” A ft err evi ew i ng J oos t en’ s r epor tfol l ow i ng a Sept ember d epende ncyr evi ew

5 h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r t a g a i n a p p r o v e d t h e c a s e p l a n g o a l o f r e u n i f i c a t i o n a n d d i r e c t e d t h a tAD ES “w i l l have di s cr et i on w i t h r es pectt o al l as pect s of vi s i t at i on. ” ¶7 I n N ovember , J oosten rep o rt ed he ha d m ade a r efe r r al fora Fami l yG r oup D e c isio n M a k in g (F G D M ) m e e tin g a n d a g a in e x p re ss e d “ c o n c e rn s a b o u t [ M ich e le] ’s a b ili ty t o car e foral l t he chi l dr en att hi s t i m e. ” H e i nform ed the j uveni l e courtt hat , al t hough
r el at i ves w er e “w i l l i ng t o become perm anentpl ace m ent [s ]
. . . [, ] ther e i s al s o a l otof
m i s t rus tbet w een t he par ent s and r el at i ves as w el l as among som e of the r el at i ves , ” and6

t her efor e, he “w oul d l i ke t o geta F G D M m eet i ng t ogether as s oon as pos s i bl e t o w or k out a pl an thatw oul d be bes tfort he chi l dr en. ” H e furt hers t at ed thatfami l y m ember s and fos t er fami l i es had agr eed “ t o par t i ci pat e i n a F G D M m eet i ng [on N ovember 2] , w her e a pe r m anent
a g re e m e n t f

o r t h e c h ild re n c a n b e m a d e b yth e f a m ily.” ¶8 A tt he D ece m ber2007 depende ncyr evi ew hear i ng, t he j uveni l e courtfound M i chel e i n compl i ance w i t h hercas e pl an. J oos t en r epor t ed M iche le w as empl oy ed, had compl et ed a tw el ve- hours ubs t ance abus e pr e- t r eatm en t pr ogr am, and w as at t endi ng p a r e n t i n g c l a s s e s a n d s u b s t a n c e a b u s e p r e v e n t i o n g r o u p s . ADE S t o l d t h e c o u r t a FGD M
s es s i on had bee n s chedul ed t o addr es s perm anenc yfort he chi l dr en, and the courtgr ant ed A D E S d isc re tio n to p lac e th e c h ild re n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th a t p ro c e ss . T h e c o u rt a g a in appr oved a c as e pl an goal of fa m i l yr euni fi cat i on. ¶9 T he FG D M m eet i ng w as hel d on J anuary 5, 2008. A pl an w as m ade t o r euni fy th e f a m ilyb ytr a n s it io n in g th e c h ild re n , o n e b yo n e , fr o m th e ir c u rre n t p lac e m e n ts in to M i c h e l e ’ s c a r e , b e g i n n i n g w i t h J o r d a n a n d p r o c e e d i n g i n o r d e r t o K a i l yn n , J e s s e , K i m b e r l y,
a n d Ke r r y . Th e t r a n s i t i o n s we r e t o b e g i n wi t h l o n g e r v i s i t s a n d o v e r n i g h t s t a y s , wi t h t h e t i me f ra m e “ to b e d e te rm in e d b yth e c h ild re n ’s n e e d s a n d a c c l[ i] m a tio n to th e c h a n g e .” ¶10 In a re p o rt h e p re p a re d a t th e e n d o f F e b ru a ry , Jo o ste n e x p lain e d to th e ju v e n ile
cour t , “I f atanyt i m e the t eam fel tt hati tw as becomi ng t o[o] m uch forthe chi l dr en ort he
m ot hert o handl e, t he s econd pl an w oul d be thatthe chi l dr en w oul d s t ayi n thei rcurr ent pl ace m ent s . ” H e al s o r epor t ed t hat A l den C arr ol l , a couns el orw ho had bee n s eei ng J or dan, J es s e, and K ai l ynn i ndi vi dual l yand i n fami l yt her apys es s i ons w i t h M i chel e fors ever alT he r ec o rd is n o t cl earas t o w hyJ or dan’ s r eturn t o M i chel e w as del ay ed fr om 6 J anuary5, t he dat e of t he FG D M m eet i ng, unt i l m i d- A pr i l , orw hyj oi ntcouns el i ng s es s i ons t o a s s i s th i s t r a n s i t i o n d i d n o tb e g i n u n t i l th e e n d o f F e b ru a r y. 7 m ont hs , had al s o j us tbegun s eei ng M i chel e and J or dan t ogetheron a w eekl ybas i s . A s he h a d p re v io u sly , Jo o ste n e x p re ss e d h is c o n c e rn th a t i t w o u ld “ b e to o m u c h ” f o r M ich e le to
car e foral l fi ve of he r chi l dr en, par t i cul ar l y w hen both J or dan and K err yhad bee n di agnos ed
w i t h s peci al needs
. H e w r ot e:

T h is c ase m an ag er f

ee ls th at at th is t im e, w ith the m o ther’s w o rk s chedul e, havi ng t w o chi l dr en w ho have s peci al needs and her b e in g a sin g le m o th e r ev e n w ith th e su p p o rt o f h e r f a m ilyw o u ld be t oo m uch forher
. She w oul d notbe abl e t o car e foral l of the chi l dren , butpos s i bl yw oul d be abl e t o car e forJ or dan and m aybe K ai l ynn orJ es s e. ¶11 J o r d a n was r e tu r n e d t o M i c h e l e ’ s c a r e o n Apr i l 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , a n d CPS r e t ai ned p sy c h o lo g ist D ian a In d ig a s to p r o v id e in ten siv e in -h o m e th e ra p yf o r Jo rd a n a n d M ich e le dur i ng t hi s tr an sit ion
. I n a r epor tpr epar ed fora perm anenc yhear i ng i n M ay , J oos t en expl ai ned ther e had be en del ay s i n pl aci ng the otherchi l dr en w i t h M i chel e “be caus e of the
conce r n t hatt he mot herw i l l notbe abl e t o car e foral l fi ve chi l dr en. ” H e r ecomm ended the 6 pl an be c hanged t o r efl ectfami l y reu ni fi cat i on forK ai l ynn and J es s e, w i t h a t ar getdat e of Sept ember30, buts ever ance and adopti o n bya r el at i ve forK err yand K i m ber l y . T he j uveni l e courtappr oved the tr ans i t i on o f K ail ynn and J es s e t o M i chel e’ s car e, found that K i m ber l yand K err ycoul d notbe re turned t o M i chel e t hen, and cont i nued the perm anenc y hear i ng unt i l Sept ember18 w i t houtchangi ng the pl an goal of r euni fi cat i on.M aur een i nt ervened i n t he t erm i nat i on adj u d i c a t i o n a n dh a s f i l e da n i nt ervenor ’ s br i ef 7 in resp o n se to ap p ell an ts’ b ri ef s an d in su p p o rto f th e juv en il e c o u rt ’s t erm ination o rde r.

8 ¶12 K ai l ynn w as r etur ned t o M i chel e’ s car e i n J un e. I n Sept ember , J oos t en
r epor t ed t o t he j uveni l e courtt hat bot h J or dan and K ai l ynn w er e doi ng w el l aft erpl ace m ent
w i t h M i chel e and thatJ es s e w as s chedul ed t o be r eturned on Sept ember12. J oos t en pr ai s ed M i chel e’ s “har d w or k” w i t h J or dan and r epor t ed thatI ndi gas h ad t ol d hi m M i chel e “doe s
v eryw ell ” w ith Jo rda n an d K ail yn n , p are n ti n g them in a c o n sist en t and stru cture d m an n er,
a n d th a t C a rro ll h a d sa id M ich e le h a d b e e n “ v e rya p p ro p ria te” w it h th e O ld e r C h ild re n in f a m ilyth e ra p y . A lth o u g h Jo o ste n w a s s u p p o rtiv e o f M ich e le’ s e f

f o rts, h e o p in e d “ it w o u ld be bett er for K i m ber l y and K err y t o r emai n i n thei rcurr entpl ace m ent s s o thatt he mot hercan focus on t he thr ee ol derchi l dr en’ s needs and i s s ues . ” H e not ed t hat J es s e and J or dan had a hi s t o r y o f c o n f

l i c t s wi t h e a c h o t h e r t h a t wou l d r e q u i r e M i c h e l e ’ s a t t e n t i o n . Ki mbe r l yand K e rry h a d r e m a in e d in th e ir o rig in a l p lac e m e n ts, K im b e rlyw ith M ich e le’ s c o u sin a n d h is
w i fe, and K err yw i t h herpat ernal g r e a t - g r andmot her , M aur een O
. J oos t en r epor t ed thateac h 7
o f th ese fo ster pa ren ts w ishe d to ad o p t th eir resp ec ti v e c h arg es a n d w ere “m o re th[ a]n
w i l l i ng” t o pr om ot e a r el at i ons hi p betw een the chi l dr en, thei rs i bl i ngs , and M i chel e. ¶13 J es s e w as r eturned t o M i chel e i n Sept emberas p l anned, and att he Sept ember18 perm anenc yhear i ng, t he courtappr oved A D E S’ s r ecomm endat i on thatt he p lan g o al fo r K erryan d K im b erlyb e c h an g ed to se v era n c e an d ad o p ti o n . A t th e c o u rt ’s dir ect i on , A D E S fi l ed a m oti on to t erm i nate M i chele’ s parent al ri gh t s t o h er tw o y ou ng est9

c h ild re n o n g ro u n d s o f

d is a b lin g m e n ta l illn e s s o r c h ro n ic d ru g a b u s e , s ee § 8- 533( B ) ( 3) , and f if te e n -m o n th , tim e -i n -c a re , s ee § 8 -53 3 (B )(8)(c). ¶14 A ft era four

- dayhear i ng, t he j uveni l e cour t i s s ued a l engthy and det ai l ed or der in w h ich it su m m a riz e d so m e o f th e f a m ily ’s h isto ry . T h e c o u rt f o u n d A D E S h a d f

a iled to pr ove M i chel e w as an unfi tpar entbeca us e of chr oni c subs t ance abus e ordi s abl i ng m ent al illn e s s , s ee § 8 -5 3 3 (B )(3 ), th e a ltern a tiv e g ro u n d s A D E S h a d a lleg e d , sta tin g :

T he evi dence i ndi cat ed t hat [M i chel e] had demonstr at ed s obr i etyforfou rt een mont hs and had pr ogr es s ed t o the poi nt w her e hert hr ee ol des t chi l dr en w er e re turned t o her
. T her efor e, t he D epart m entdi d notpr ove bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence th a t th e c o n d iti o n w o u ld c o n tin u e f o r a p ro lo n g e d in d e ter m in a te per i od. W i t h r es pectt o m ent al i l l nes s , ther e w as evi dence that t he mot her ’ s deni al and/ ordefe ns i venes s m ay have pr event ed gen uine progress i n ther apy . H ow ever, her i n-hom e t herapi st in d ica ted th a t th e m o th e r ha d m a d e su f f icie n t p ro g re ss to sa f

e ly par entt he thr ee ol des tchi l dr en pr es ent l yi n hercar e. T her efor e, t he D epart m entdi d notpr ove bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence th a t th e c o n d iti o n w o u ld c o n tin u e f o r a p ro lo n g e d in d e ter m in a te per i od. ¶15 I n addr es s i ng t he mot i on t o t erm i nat e M i chel e’ s r i ght s pur s uantt o § 8- 533( B ) ( 8) ( c) , t he j uveni l e courtw r ot e:

T he ci r cumst ance w hi ch ca us ed t he chi l dr en t o be pl ace d ou t -of- ho m e w as neg l ect . T he p arent s’ m et ham ph et am i ne u se w a s th e p rim a ryre a so n f o r th e n e g lec t. F o llo w in g re m o v a l [ in 2004] , K err y . . . w as di agnos ed as fai l ur e t o t hr i ve and pl ace d at C asa d e los N ino s w h ere g lob al de v elop m en tal d elay s w ere not ed. K i m ber l y w as s m al l forherage, devel opm ent al l ybehi nd in w a lk in g a n d ta lk in g a n d n o t e x p re s s iv e o f h e r n e e d s . . . . D u r i n g t h e d e p e n d e n c y, [ M i c h e l e ] m a i n t a i n e d s o b r i e t y. She al s o addr essed s om e of the deni al / defe ns i venes s conce r ns10 id e n tifie d in h e r p sy c h o lo g ica l ev a lu a tio n . H o w e v e r, sh e still does notappea rt o full yunder s t and K err y [’ s ] devel opm ent al delay s. T he D epart m entoffe r ed manys ervi ces t o as s i s tthe m ot her , i ncl udi ng drug t es t i ng, ther apy , s upervi s ed vi s i t at i on, and par ent i ng cl as s es . D es pi t e thes e s ervi ces , [M i chel e] s t i l l has s i gni fi cantcha ll enges i n m anagi ng the beha vi or s of herthr ee ol des t chi l dr en, par t i cul ar l y t he i nt er act i on betw een J or dan and Je ss e . . . . Jo rd a n h a s m a d e p ro g re ss in d e a li n g w ith h is b e h a v io rs. K a ilyn n ’s tran sitio n to h e r m o th e r’s c a re w e n t w e ll, butcr eat ed j eal ous yi s s ues forJ o rda n. J es s e’ s t r ans i t i on has b e e n m o re d if

f icu lt. Je ss e n e e d s m u c h m o n ito rin g d u e to h is behavi orprob le m s , appar entdepr es s i on, s l eep pr obl ems and gui l toveran i ncide n t in fos t ercar e. [M i chel e] w i l l need a n in d e ter m in a te a m o u n t o f tim e to sta b ili z e th e c u rre n t f a m ily dynami c. A l t hough i t w as al w ay s t he pl an t o tr ans i t i on t he c h i l d r e n h o m e o n e b y o n e a s e a c h a d d i t i o n a c h i e v e d s t a b i l i t y, even [ M i chel e] acknow l edges now that s he does notknow how m uch t i m e thatw oul d t ake. Ke r r y. . . a n d Ki mb e r l y w e r e p l a c e d o u t - o f

- h o me i ni t i al l ybeca us e theyand thei rol ders i bl i ngs w er e negl ect ed by t hei rpar ent s . T he negl ectw as l ar gel ydue t o m ethamphet ami ne us e b y b o t h p a r e n t s . Al t h o u g h t h e moth e r n o w a p p e a r s t o be c lea n , K e rry . . . a n d K im b e rly re m a in a t risk f o r ne g lec t d u e to ci r cumst ance s i n t he home. T he m o ther w or ks ful l

- t i m e and re lies o n h e r p a r e n ts f

o r c h ild c a re in th e e v e n in g s. S h e still r equi r es t he r egul aras s i s t anc e of a n i n- hom e ther api s tt o deal w i t h behavi ori s s ues w i t h t he thr ee ol des tchi l dr en. T he pas tneglec tof al l of the mot her ’ s chi l dr en has l eft herw i t h a compl i cat ed fa m il ydynami c. T her e has been s l ow i m pr ovement . T o the ext entt hatt he mot her ’ s pas tnegl ectof her chi ld re n h a s contr i bu t ed to the cu rr ent s i tuati on , as i tm ost cert ai nl yhas , s he has notbeen a bl e t o r emedyt he ci r cumst ance s w hi ch ca us ed K err y. . . and K i m ber l yt o be r emoved.

. . . .

. . . K err y . . . has been out

- of- hom e foraboutt w o- t hi r ds of her fi ve and a h alf y ear s . K i m ber l yhas been out

- of- hom e forA fter M iche le an d th e O ld e r C h il d ren fil ed their op en ing b ri ef s, co u n sel fo r K erry 8 and K i m ber l yfi l ed a “ m ot i on t o str ike o r d is m i s s appea l s ” w i t h r egar d t o K err yon t he gr ound t hatK err yhad bee n adopt ed w hi l e thi s appea l w as p en d ing and heradopt i on had al l egedl yr end ere d the appe al s byM i chel e and the O l derC hi l dr en moot . W e deni ed the m ot i on. W e concl ude anyar gum ent s aboutt he ef fec tof ourdeci s i on on an or derauthor i zi ng K err y ’ s adopt i on ar e bes taddr es s ed, i n the fi r s t i ns t ance , t o the j uveni l e court , and w e dec l i ne t o r enderan advi s or yopi ni on on t he i s s ue. 11

al m osthalf of her fou r y ears . A tt he ti m e of trial, n o w i t ness coul d pr edi ctw hen the mot her ’ s s i tuat i on at hom e w i t h the thr ee ol des tchi l dr en w oul d be s t abl e enough forei t herK err y. . . or K i m ber l yt o r etur n hom e.

. . . T he m otherhas be e n o f f e re d services for fou r of the p ast fi ve y ear s , t hr oughoutm os tof the gi r l s ’ l i ves , but s t i l l has been unabl e t o r emedyt he ci rcu m stance s t hatcaus ed them t o be o u t-o f -h o m e f o r o v e r f if tee n m o n th s. B e c a u se o f th is , the re is a subst anti al l i keli ho od th a t s h e w i l l no tbe ab l e t o ex erci se pr operand ef

fec t i ve par ent al car e and c ont r ol forthem i n t he near fu tur e . Thi s i s pa r t i c ul a r l ytrue fo rK e r r y. . . [who has] d e v e lo p m e n ta l d e la y s a n d s p e c ia l n e e d s . . . . T her efor e, t he C our tfin d s t hat[A D E S] pr oved the gr o u n d o f

l e n g t h o f

t i me i n c a r e , a s p r o v i d e d b yA
. R. S. § 8- 533( B ) ( 8) [( c) ] bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence
. 8 I I . D i s cus s i on A. ¶16 T h is a p p e a l ra ise s th e n o v e l issu e o f w h e th e r a ju v e n ile c o u rt m a yter m in a te par ent al r i ght s under § 8- 533( B ) ( 8) ( c) , bas ed on fi ft een mont hs orl ongeri n court - or der ed, out - of- hom e pl ace m ent , w hen A D E S’ s pl an of r euni fi cat i on contr i but ed t o andc o n t e mpl at edBe c a u s e t h i s q u e s t i o n h a s n o tb e e n s q u a r e l ya d d r e s s e d i n p u b l i s h e d o p i n i o n s , we 9 o rd e re d su p p lem e n tal b rie f in g to a f f o rd th e p a rties a n o p p o rtu n ityto a d d re ss it. A D E S w as al s o r equi r ed t o pr ove, bya pr eponder ance of evi dence , t hatt erm i nat i on 10 o f M ic h e le ’s p a re n ta l r ig h ts w a s in th e b e s t in te re s ts o f K e rr ya n d K im b e rl y . See KentK

. v. B o b b y M. , 2 1 0 A ri z. 27 9 , ¶ 2 2 , 1 1 0 P
. 3 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 1 8 (20 0 5 ). 12 t he l ength of t i m e the chi l dr en w oul d r emai n i n car e and t he par ent w as i n ful l compl i ance
w i t h t he pl an. 9 B. ¶17 F o r th e ju v e n ile c o u rt to ter m in a te M ich e le’ s p a re n tal rig h ts p u r s u a n t to § 8- 533( B ) ( 8) ( c) , A D E S w as r equi r ed t o pr ove ithad made a “di l i genteff or tt o pr ovi de
a p p ro p ria te r e u n if

ica tio n se rv ice s” f

o r M ich e le a n d h e r c h ild re n , b u t, d e sp ite th a t ef f o rt, M ich e le h a d b e e n u n a b le to re m e d yth e c irc u m sta n c e s c a u sin g K e rrya n d K im b e rlyto b e in
c o u rt-o rd e re d , o u t-o f

-h o m e c a re f

o r f if tee n m o n th s o r l o n g e r . In a d d iti o n , A D E S h a d to
es t abl i s h t her e w as “a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood t hat[M i chel e w oul d ] n o t b e capa bl e of
exer cisi n g p r operand ef fec t i ve par ent al car e and c ontr ol i n the nea rfutur e. ” I d. E ach of th e s e e le m e n ts re q u ir e d p ro o f b yc le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . See A
. R
. S
. § 8 -86 3 (B ); Mar y E l l en C

. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 193 A r i z. 185, ¶ 25, 971 P. 2d 1046, 1051 ( A pp. 1 9 9 9 ). In d e c id in g w h e th e r A D E S su sta in e d its b u rd e n , the c o u rt w a s a ls o r e q u ir e d to “cons i dert he ava i l abi l i t yof r euni fi cat i on s ervi ces t o t he par entand the part i ci pat i on of the p a r e n ti n t h e s e s e r v i c e s . ” § 8
- 5 3 3 ( D)
. M i c hel e and th e Ol d e rChi l d r e n c o n t e n d AD ES 10 f a iled to su sta in its b u rd e n o f p ro v in g th a t: (1 ) A D E S d ili g e n tlyh a d p ro v id e d a p p ro p ria te
se rv ice s d e sig n e d to re u n ite M ich e le w ith K e rryo r K im b e rly , (2 ) M ich e le h a d f a iled to13

r emedythe ci r cumst ance s causing K err yand K i m ber l yt o r emai n i n out - of- hom e ca r e, or (3) there w as a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood t hatM i chel e w oul d be unabl e t o par entei t herof the gi r l s i n t he nea rfutur e. W e addr es s eac h of thes e ar gum ent s i n turn. C. ¶18 T he j uveni l e court , as the tr i erof fa ct in a term ina t i on pr ocee di ng, “i s i n t he bestpo si t i on t o w ei gh t he evidence, ob serve t he part i es, j ud ge t he credibi l i t yof w i t nesses, and r es ol ve di s put ed fa ct s . ” A r iz . De p ’ to f E c o n . S e c . v . Os c a rO. , 209 A r i z. 332, ¶ 4, 100 P. 3d 943, 945 ( A pp. 2004)
. A ccor di ngl y , w e vi ew t he evi dence and r eas onabl e i nfer ence s to b e d ra w n f

ro m it in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to s u s ta in in g th e c o u rt ’s d e c is io n , J e s u s M.
v. A r iz . D ep’ t of E con. Sec. , 2 0 3 A riz
. 2 7 8 , ¶ 1 3 , 5 3 P .3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 7 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ), an d w e w ill
a f f ir m a te rm in a tio n o rd e r t h a t is s u p p o rt e d b yre a s o n a b l e e v i d e n c e . Jenn i f er B

. v. A ri

z. D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 189 A r i z. 553, 555, 944 P. 2d 68, 70 ( A pp. 1997)
. W e do notr ew ei gh th e e v id e n c e . See Las honda M

. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 210 A r i z. 77, ¶ 13, 107 P. 3d 9 2 3 , 9 2 7 (A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). W h e n th e sta tu to ryg ro u n d s f o r te rm in a tio n a re c h a llen g e d , w e w ill
a f f irm a ter m in a ti o n o r d e r “ ‘u n les s w e m u st s a ya s a m a tter o f law th a t n o o n e c o u ld
r eas onabl yfi nd t he evi dence [s uppor t i ng s t atut orygr ounds fort erm i nat i on] t o be cl earand convi nci ng. ’ ” D enis e R

. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 221 A r i z. 92, ¶ 10, 210 P. 3d 1263, 1266 (A p p . 2 0 0 9 ), quot i ng Mur i l l o v. Her nandez , 7 9 A ri z. 1, 9, 28 1 P
. 2 d 7 8 6 , 7 9 1 (19 5 5 ).14 D. 1 . Di l i g e nt e f

f o r t s t o r e un i f

y. ¶19 A s t he age ncyr es pons i bl e fort he ca r e of M iche le ’ s chi l dr en, A D E S had
s ta tu to ry a n d c o n s titu tio n a l o b lig a tio n s to m a k e re a s o n a b le e f f o rt s to re u n if

y th is f a m ily. See Mar i na P

. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 214 A ri z. 326, ¶ 37, 152 P. 3d 1209, 1216 ( A pp. 2 0 0 7 ); Ma r

y El l e n C. , 193 A r i z. 1 8 5 , ¶ 33, 971 P. 2d at1053 ( “A r i zona c our t s have l ong
r equi r ed the S t at e . . . t o demonstr at e thati thas m ade a r eas onabl e ef for tt o pr es erve the f a mi l y . ” ) ; § 8
- 5 3 3 ( B) ( 3 )
. Nei t h e rM i c h e l e n o rt h e Ol d e rChi l d r e n d i s p u t e t h a tAD ES p ro v id e d a p p ro p ria te se rv ice s to re u n ite the f o u r of th e m . B u t th e O ld e r C h ild re n a rg u e th a t, “bydes i gn, ” A D E S fai l ed t o m ake a di l i gent eff or t t o r euni t e K err yand K i m ber l yw i th t he
re st o f th e f a m ily . M ich e le a g re e s, c iti n g C P S ’s f a ilu r e to in c lu d e K e rrya n d K im b e rlyin
couns el i ng w i t h I ndi gas , w hom C PS had r et ai ned t o hel p M i chel e eff ect i vel y par en t her chi l dr en as theyw er e r etur ned t o hercar e, and i t s fai l ur e t o expand vi s i t at i on betw een M i chel e and the tw o gi r l s t o i ncl ude l ongerand uns upervi s ed vi s i t s , as cont empl at ed bythe
cas e pl an adopt ed att he FG D M m eet i ng. ¶20 C i t i ng Ma r y El l e n C. , A D E S resp o n d s tha t i t i s n o t r eq u ir ed to “p rov ide ‘e v ery
conce i vabl e s ervi ce’ ” ort o “ under t ake r ehabi l i t at i ve meas ur es thatar e fut i l e. ” 193 A r i z. 185, ¶ ¶ 3 4 , 3 7 , 9 7 1 P .2 d a t 1 0 5 3 , quot i ng I n r e M ar i copa C ount

y Juv

. A ct i on N

o. JS- 501904 , 180 A r i z. 348, 353, 884 P. 2d 234, 239 ( A pp. 1994)
. A l t hough t hes e ar e correct sta t ement s of l aw , t heyare i nco m plet e. A s Ma r y El l e n C. a lso m a d e c lea r, w h e n th e s ta te h a s a d u tyto p ro v id e re u n if

ica tio n se rv ice s, “ it m u st p ro v id e a p a re n t w ith th e tim e a n d o p p o rtu n ityto15

par t i ci pat e i n pr ogr ams des i gned t o i m pr ove the par ent ’ s abi l i tyt o car e for t he chi l d. ” A nd,
a lth o u g h f

u til e e f f o rts a re n o t r e q u ire d , A D E S m u st “ u n d e rta k e m e a su re s w ith a re a so n a b le p ro s p e c t o f

s u c c e s s ” in re u n itin g th e f a m ily. I d. ¶21 W e re

jec t A D E S ’s a p p a re n t su g g e stio n th a t atte m p ts t o re u n if yM ich e le w ith K err yorK i m ber l yw ere fu ti le beca us e “a s ear l yas A ugus t2007, ” J oos t en had “ expr es s ed
conce r n t hat [M i chel e] w oul d never be abl e t o handl e al l fi ve chi l dr en. ” J oos t en’ s conce r n, even i f i tpr oved t o be an a ccur at e pr edi ct i on, w as notcl earand convi n cing evi dence t hat
r euni fi cat i on s ervi ces A D E S d id notpr ovi de w oul d have be en “f ut i l e. ” See i d. ¶ 42 (re q u irin g A D E S to “ p ro v e b yc lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t it h a [ s] m a d e a re a so n a b le eff or tt o pr ovi de [the par ent ] w i t h r ehabi l i tat i ve s ervi ces orthats uch an e ffortw oul d be fu ti le”). ¶22 J oos t en ac know l edged a tt he t erm i nat i on hear i ng that he had not pr ovi ded any
s ervi ces des i gned t o r euni fyK err yand K i m ber l yw i t h M i chel e, s t at i ng he “w as t aki ng eac h
c h ild a ste p a t a tim e in to th e h o m e .” In d e e d , In d ig a s te stif ied th a t w h e n sh e w a s re tain e d to
as s i s ti n r euni t i ng t he fa m i ly in the s pr i ng of 2008, herw or k w as l i m i t ed t o t he O l der C hi l dr en and s he had “ know n fr om t he begi nni ng” that A D E S had pl anned t o r ecomm end t e r m i n a t i o n o f

M i c h e l e ’ s r i g h t s t o K e r r y a n d K i m b e r l y. ¶23 B as ed on the r euni fi cat i on pl an adopt ed atthe FG D M m eet i ng, A D E S ar gues itw as n o t req u ir ed to p rov ide reu n ifi ca ti o n serv ices fo r K erry an d K im b erly b ec au se “ [b ]y t he t i m e the ol derchi l dr en w er e tr ans i t i oned home, the gi rl s h ad agai n been outof [ M ich e le’ s] c a re f

o r e ig h tee n m o n th s, a n d th e re w a s n o re a so n a b le a s s u ra n c e o f th e irI n Mar i copa C ount y N o. JS- 501568 , the c o u rt c o n sid e re d w h e th e r a m o th e r’s rig h ts 11 coul d be t erm i nat ed bec aus e she subs t ant i al l y had negl ect ed orw i l l ful l yr efus ed t o r emedy ci r cumst ance s t hatcaus ed herchi l d t o r emai n i n a court - or der ed, out - of- hom e pl ace m ent d u ri n g th e f

ir s t y e a r o f

a d e p e n d e n c yp ro c e e d in g , s ee § 8 -53 3 (B )(8)(a) (no w n ine m o n ths), even though, byt he t i m e of the t erm i nat i on hear i ng, s he appea r ed near l y r eady t o par enther chi l d, pr ecl udi ng t erm i nat i on under w hat i s now § 8- 533( B ) ( 8) ( c)
. 177 A r i z. at 577, 577 n. 2, 8 6 9 P
. 2 d at 12 3 0 , 1 2 3 0 n . 2
. T h e cas e ha s li tt le relev an ce to th e su ff ici en cyo f A D E S ’s ef

fo rt t o pr ovi de appr opr i at e r euni fi cat i on s ervi ces t o a mot herw ho w as ful l ycompl i antw i th her cas e pl an, t he i s s ue r ai s ed her e. T h e re c o rd s u p p o rts th e O ld e r C h ild re n ’s a ss e rtio n th a t M ich e le h a d b e e n a b le to 12 reu n it e w ith Jo rda n , K ail yn n , an d Jess e m o re q u ickly than A D E S h ad ex p ec ted. In F eb rua ry 2008, J oos t en had s ugges t ed a r evi ew hear i ng be hel d i n A ugus t2008, m o re tha n fi ft een m ont hs aft ert he chi l dr en had be en pl ace d i n out - of- hom e ca r e, “t o det erm i ne i f anyof the ot herchi l dr en, ” i n addi t i on t o J or dan, coul d be r euni t ed w i t h M i chel e. 16 r euni fi cat i on. ” Q uot i ng I n r e M a r i c o p a Cou n t

y J u v e n i l e Ac t i o n No. J

S

- 5 0 1568 , AD ES
a ss e rts, “ ‘[ l]e a v in g th e w in d o w o f o p p o rtu n ity f o r re m e d iatio n o p e n in d e f in itely
. . . [w a s n o t] i n [K err yand K i m ber l y ] ’ s bes ti nt er es t s . ’ ” 177 A r i z. 571, 577, 869 P. 2d 1224, 1230 ( A pp. 1994)
. I n i t s s uppl ement al br i ef, A D E S fur t hercont ends t hat“s t abi l i zi ng t he ol derchi l dr en

11

w as a pr er equi s i t e t o r etur ni ng K err yorK i m ber l y , ” and ther efor e, “s ervi ces dir ec ted at
a d d r e s s i n g [ M i c h e l e ] ’ s n e e d s . . . a n d a ts t a b i l i z i n g th e o l d e rc hi l dr en w ere r euni fi cat i on
s e rv ic e s p ro v id e d to e f

f e c tu a te K e rr y ’s a n d K im b e rl y ’s re tu rn to [ M ic h e le ]’ s c a re .” ¶24 B u t th e O ld e r C h ild re n c o n ten d A D E S c o n tro lled th e tim e tab le f o r its p lan to
re u n if yM ich e le w ith e a c h c h ild in su c c e ss io n a n d h a d c o n tem p late d th a t re u n if ica tio n c o u ld notbe compl et ed w i t houts om e of t he chi l dr en r emai ni ng i n an out - of- hom e pl ace m entfor l ongert han fi ft een mont hs
. T heyar gue A D E S fai l s “t o u n d ert ake meas ur es w i th a 12

r eas onabl e pr os pectof s ucce s s w hen i tcr eat es a t i m et abl e forr euni fi cat i o n in ex cess of17

[ f if tee n] m on t hs— and t hen m ov es for sever ance b ased on the [c hil dren’s ] excess t i m e [ in
car e]
. ” U ndert he ci r cumst ance s i n t hi s cas e, w e agr ee. ¶25 F o r eigh teen m o n ths, th e o n lyca se p lan g o al ap p rov ed b ythe ju v en ile co u rt foreac h of M i ch ele’s c hi l dr en w as fami l yr euni fi cat i on. W e appr eci at e the mer i tof the F GDM p l a n t o p l a c e t h e c h i l d r e n wi t h M i c h e l e i n s u c c e s s i o n , a s a p l a c e me n tp l a n . Bu twe
ar e n otper s uaded ther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt he fi ndi ng t hatA D E S m ade a di l i genteff

or tt o r euni fyt hi s fami l yw hen i tdeci ded t o pr ovi de r euni fi cat i on s ervi ces
s ucce s s i vel yas w el l
. A nd, al t hough s t ab il izi ng the O l derC hi l dr en one a ta t i m e w as
c o n sis ten t w ith th e c a se p lan A D E S h a d c re a ted a n d w ith w h ich M ich e le h a d c o m p li e d , it
w as onl y a “pr er equi s i t e” i n t he cont ext of t hat pl an. I t w as not empi r i cal evi denc e t hat M i chele w as unab l e t o p arentK i m berl yor K erry at t he t i m e of the heari ng , t hat there w as a
s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood s he w oul d be u n ab le to par entthem i n t he nea rfutur e, orthati tw as f u tile to p ro v id e th e f

a m ily f u rt h e r r e u n if

ic a tio n s e rv ic e s . ¶26 A tm os t , J oos t en’ s t es t i m onyes t abl i s hed t he pl an had been bas ed on w hathe bel i eved w oul d be i n t he chi l dr en’ s bes ti nt er es t s , notw hether, in the abs ence of i deal ci r cumst ance s , M i chel e w oul d be ca pabl e of par ent i ng K i m ber l yorK err yi n addi t i on t o her ot hert hr ee c hi l dr en. W hen aske d w hyhe had r ecomm ended t erm i nat i on and adopt i on for K e rry , fo r e x a m p le, J o o ste n c ited K e rry ’s s p e c ial n e e d s a n d h e r lo n g p lac e m e n t w ith M aur een. A s ked di r ect l yw hetherhe bel i eved M iche le h ad been una bl e t o r emedyt he ci r cumst ance s t hatcaus ed K err y t o be i n an out - of- hom e pl ace m entand w hethert her e w as
a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood M i chel e w oul d not be capa bl e of par ent i ng herin the n ea r futur e,18

J oos t en ans w er ed, “I t hi nk t hat K erry . . . w oul d be anotherchal l enge f orM i chel e on t op of the o ther k ids,” an d h e f

ea red return ing h er to M iche le’s care m igh t po ssiblyca u se M iche le’s p a r e n t i n g a b i l i t i e s t o b a c k s l i d e . He a l s o o p i n e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h h e b e l i e v e d M i c h e l e “ k n o ws
w h a t’s g o in g o n w ith K e r r y[ ,]
. . . w o rk in g w ith K e rry[ w o u ld ] b e a n e w stre ss o r” in M i chel e’ s l i fe. ¶27 Jo o sten d id n o t exp ress the sam e fe ars ab o u t return ing K im b erly to M iche le’s
car e, how ever , s t at i ng s he i s “a norm al l i t t l e [thr ee]
- y ear - ol d chi l d w ho needs t o have connect i ons w i t h m om and herbr ot her s and s i s t er s and herext ended f ami l y . ” H e adde d, “K im b erlyan d K erryare the p ri n ce sses o f th e f am il y ” a n d Jo rda n an d Jess e a re “ v ery pr ot ect i ve of t he tw o l i t t l e gi r l s . . . . ” H i s r ecomm endat i on of t erm i nat i on and adopt i on for K im b e rlyw a s b a se d o n th e len g th o f h e r pla c e m e n t a n d h is be lief th a t M ich e le “ n e e d e d to puta l otof emphasi s on t he thr ee o lder k ids an d s uppor tforthem. ” W hen as ked about M ich e le’ s a b ili ty to p a re n t h e r y o u n g e st c h ild , J o o ste n sta ted th a t K im b e rly“ w o u ld p ro b a b ly [be] aff ect [ed]
. . . s om ehow ” by“bei ng t aken a w ayfr om a pl ace m entt hats he’ s been i n for
s o l ong . . . . ” A nd, w hen aske d w hether he t hought i t w oul d be poss i bl e t o r euni fyal l of the chi l dr en w i t h M i chel e i f herpl an w ere ex tended foran addi t i onal s i x m onths , J oos t en
r es ponded, “[A ] nyt hi ng i s pos s i bl e, butI t hi nk t he bes t i nt er es t s of the chi l dr en l i e i n havi ng K i m ber l yand K err yw her e theyar e and h av ing the ol derki ds w i t h t he r eal l yone- t o- one
s u p p o rt th a t th e yn e e d f ro m th e irm o m .” ¶28 J oos t en’ s o bs ervat i ons m ayhave be en r el evantt o the i s s ue of w hether ter m in a ti o n o f

M ich e le’ s rig h ts w a s in th e c h ild re n ’s b e st in ter e sts , w h ich th e c o u rt c o u ldIn its su p p lem e n tal b rie f , A D E S a rg u e s it h a d p ro v id e d f a m ilyc o u n se lin g w ith 13 A l den C arr ol l t o “the ent i r e fami l y . ” B ut , al t hough J oos t en r efe r s t o C arr ol l ’ s w or k w i t h “the chi l dr en” i n hi s r epor t s , hi s t es t i m ony , as w el l as t he t es t i m ony of fos t er car e l i cens i ng agent A nabel i M i r anda, cl ar i fi ed thatt hes e s ervi ces w er e onl ypr ovi ded t o t he O l derC hi l dr en. 19 onl ycons i deri f t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h a s t atut orygr ound fort erm i nat i on. B utt hos e obs ervat i ons di d notpr ovi de a ba s i s forw i t hhol di ng uns upervi s ed vi s i t at i on and
o th e r s e r v i c e s d e s ig n e d to re u n if yM ic h e le w ith h e r t w o y o u n g e s t c h ild re n . C f

. In re Mar i copa C ount

y Juveni l e A ct i on N

o. JS- 6831 , 155 A r i z. 556, 558, 748 P. 2d 785, 787 ( A pp. 1988) ( “[T] erm i nat i on cannot be pre di cat ed sol el y on t he best i nt er es t s of the chi l d. ”)
. N or di d t heyr enders uch s ervi ces fut i l e. ¶29 M or eover , as t he cour tnot ed i n M a r y El l e n C. , A D E S fai l s t o m ake a s uffi ci ent ef fo rtto reu n ify a fa m il y “w h en itn eg lects t o o ff er the v eryserv ices tha t i ts co n su lt ing ex p ert
re c o m m e n d s.” 1 9 3 A r iz
. 1 8 5 , ¶ 3 7 , 9 7 1 P .2 d a t 1 0 5 3 . A lth o u g h R o lli n s h a d p lain ly
r ecomm ended thatA D E S r et ai n a ther api s tw ho coul d pr ovi de a “ d ir ectas s es s m entof the
m o th e r- c h ild re latio n sh ip [ ]” b e tw e e n M ich e le a n d e a c h o f h e r c h ild re n , A D E S f

a iled to fol l ow t hatr ecomm endat i on and i ns t ead l i m i t ed I ndi gas ’ s i n- hom e couns el i ng, as w el l as C a rro ll’s th e ra p yse ss io n s, to th e O ld e r C h ild re n . A s n o ted b e lo w , this f a ilu re n o t o n ly 13 im p a ire d A D E S ’s a b ili tyto p ro v e th e a d e q u a c y o f its re u n if ica tio n e f f o rts, b u t o th e r e lem e n ts
o f th e tim e -in -c a re g ro u n d it h a d a lleg e d a s w e ll. ¶30 A D E S h a d a n o b lig a ti o n to m a k e d ili g e n t ef f o rts to re u n if

yM ich e le w ith a ll of herchi l dr en, i ncl udi ng t he tw o y ounges t , dur i ng the ent i r e t i m e the pl an goal w as
r euni fi c a t i o n . I n s t e a d , AD ES w i t hhel d s ervi ces des i gned t o fac i l i t at e M i chel e’ s r euni fi cat i onW e c o n stru e § 8 -5 3 3 (B )(8 )(c )’s re f e re n c e to “ c irc u m sta n c e s th a t ca u se th e c h ild to 14 be i n an out - of- hom e pl ace m ent , ” id
. , “‘ t o m ean t hos e ci r cumst ance s exi s t i ng att he t i m e of t he seve r ance ’ t hat pr event a par ent fr om bei ng abl e t o appr opr i at el y pr ovi de for hi s orher chi l dr en. ” Ma r i n a P. , 214 A r i z. 326, ¶ 22, 152 P. 3d at1213 ( di s cus s i ng t erm i nat i on bas ed o n § 8 -5 3 3 (B )( 8 )( a )) , q u o t i n gI n r e Ma r i c o

p a Cou n t

y J u v . Ac t i o n No. J

S

- 8441 , 1 75 A r i z. 4 6 3 , 4 6 8 , 8 5 7 P .2 d 1 3 1 7 , 1 3 2 2 (A p p . 1 9 9 3 ), o v e r r u l e d i n p a r t o n o th e rg r o u n d s b y Ke n tK. v . B o b b y M. , 2 1 0 A ri z. 27 9 , ¶¶ 8 -22 , 1 1 0 P
. 3 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 1 6 -18 (20 0 5 ). 20 w i t h K err yand K i m ber l y , i ncl u d i n g e x p a n d e dv i s i t a t i o n a n df ami l ycouns el i ng, w hi l e w ai t i ng t o s ee w hethert he O l derC hi l dr en coul d be re turned succ es s ful l y t o hercar e. A nd, aft ert he fi r s tt hr ee pl ace m ent s w er e made, A D E S for ecl os ed al l eff or t s t o r euni t e M i chel e w i th her tw o y o u n g e st c h ild re n b yse e k in g to ter m in a te h e r p a re n tal rig h ts to th e m o n th e g ro u n d th a t, under§ 8- 533( B ) ( 8) ( c) , t he chi l dr en had a l r eadybeen outof the home fort oo lon g . T he
r ecor d does not s uppor t t he j uveni l e court ’ s fi ndi ng, bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence , that A D E S m a d e a d i l i g e n te f f o r tt o r e u n i f

y th i s f a m i l y. 2. Ina b i l i ty to rem ed y ci rcu m st an ces. ¶31 A s t h i s c a s e i l l u s t r a t e s , AD ES’ s d u t yt o p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e r e u n i f i c a t i on
s ervi ces and i t s bur den of pr ovi ng a par ent ’ s fai l ur e t o r emedyci r cumst ance s thatpr ecl uded her r euni fi cat i on w i t h her chi l dr en ar e oft en r el at ed. T he purpos e of pr ovi di ng r euni fi cat i on 14

s ervi ces i s t o aff

or d a par ent“the t i m e and oppor tuni t y t o par t i ci pat e i n pr ogr ams des i gned t o i m pr ove t he par ent ’ s abi l i t y t o car e for t he chi l d. ” M a r y El l e n C. , 193 A r i z. 185, ¶ 37, 971 P. 2d at1053. Such eff

or t s al s o enabl e A D E S t o eval uat e a par ent ’ s pr ogr es s , orl ack ther eof, t ow ard m aking r eun i fi cat i on po ssi ble. W i t ho ut such eval uati ve evi den ce, A D E S m a yf a ll
s hor tof s us t ai ni ng i t s bur den of pr o v ing that t erm i nat i on of a pa r ent ’ s r i ght s i s w arr ant ed. See i d. , ¶¶ 2 0 -2 1 , n .7 (f

a ilu re to p ro v id e a p p ro p ria te se rv ice s re su lted in w itn e ss e s’ “ in a b ili ty21

to a ss e ss [ m o th e r’s ] c u rre n t circ u m sta n c e s” a n d A D E S ’s in a b ili tyto p ro v e “ ‘re a so n a b le g ro u n d s to b e liev e th e p a re n t’s c o n d iti o n w ill c o n tin u e f o r a p ro lo n g e d , ind e ter m in a te p eriod , ’” u n d er § 8 -53 3 (B )(3)). ¶32 H e re , A D E S ’s f a ilu re to in v o lv e e ith e r o f th e y o u n g e r ch ild re n in th e ra p yw ith C arr oll or I nd i gas— bo t h co un sel ors w ho w orked w i t h the fam i l yi nd i vidual l yor as a uni t

— pr event ed A D E S fr om obt ai ni ng w hat R ol l i ns had r ecomm ended a nd A D E S needed:
a d ire c t as se ss m e n t o f

M ich e le’ s p re se n t p a r e n tin g a b ili ties a n d c a p a c iti e s w ith re sp e c t to K im b e rly o r K e rry . L ik e M ich e le, w e a re n o t ce rta in o f th e e v id e n tiary ba sis f

o r th e ju v e n ile
cour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hat“K err y. . . and K i m ber l yr emai n atr i s k fornegl ectdue t o ci r cumst ance s i n the hom e. ” Indi gas, t he only t herapi st w ho t est i fi ed ab ou tM i chele’ s parent i ng abil i t i es,
s ta te d h e r p ro g re s s w ith th e O ld e r C h ild re n h a d b e e n “ m ir a c u lo u s , o n a lo t o f le v e ls .” Al t h o u g h t h e c o u r tf

o u n d Mi c h e l e “ s t i l l r e q u i r e s t h e r e g u l a ra s s i s t a n c e o f a n i n - h o me t her api s tt o deal w i t h behavi ori s s ues w i t h t he thr ee ol des tchi l dr en, ” I ndi gas t es t i fi ed M i chel e “ha [d] m etal l t r eatm entgoal s and obj ect i ves and [w as ] r eady t o be di s char ged fr om t he i n- hom e pr ogr am . ” B ase d o nl yon herexper i ence w i t h M i chel e and the thr ee ol der chi l dr en, I ndi gas opi ned M i chel e w oul d be abl e t o par ent addi t i onal chi l dr en. B utI ndi gas
a c k n o w led g e d th a t sh e c o u ld e x p re ss n o o p in io n a b o u t M ich e le’ s a b ili tyto p a re n t K im b e rly
orK err y , beca us e s he had never w or ked w i t h t hos e chi l dr en. A nd, al t hough J oos t en off er ed22

hi s opi ni on of w hatw oul d be bes tforthe fa m i l yand cha ll en g es they m ightfac e, he neve r
o p i n e d t h a tM i c h e l e w a s u n a b l e t o p a r e n tK e r r y o rK i m b e r l y e f f e c t i v e l y. 3. A bi l i t y t o parent i n t he near f ut ure. ¶33 T her e w as even l es s evi dence t o s uppor tthe j uveni l e cour t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat t her e w as a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood M i chel e “[w o u ld] notbe abl e t o exer ci s e pr operand eff ect i ve par ent al car e and c ont r ol
. . . i n t he nea rfutur e. ” The cour ts t at ed i n i t s or derthat “no w i t ness cou l d p redi ctw hen t he m other ’s si tua tio n a t h o m e w i t h [the] three ol dest
c h ild re n w o u ld b e sta b le e n o u g h f o r eith e r K e rry a n d o r K im b e rly to re tu rn h o m e .” T h e o n ly
e v id e n c e o f

a n u n s ta b le s itu a tio n a t h o m e re late d to Je ss e ’s p ro g re ss in m a k in g a su itab le ad justm en t. W e a g ree w ith the O lder C h il d ren that the in ab il ityto p red icth o w lon g Jess e’s adj us t m ent m i ghtt ake f

al l s s hor tof cl earand convi nci ng evi dence of a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood that M iche le w o u ld be un ab le to care fo r K im b erly o r K erry , o r bo th, i n the n ea r fu ture. It i s n o t a p are n t’ s bur den t o pr ove s he w i l l be ca pabl e of pa r ent i ng eff ect i vel yi n t he nea r f u tu re , b u t A D E S ’s b u rd e n to p ro v e th e re is a su b sta n tial lik e lih o o d sh e w ill n o t. A t m o st, t he evi dence es t abl i s hed onl yt hatno one coul d pr edi ctw hen J es s e w oul d be s t abi l i zed a nd
w hen K i m ber l y , and l at er K err y , coul d be re turned t o M i chel e’ s car e i n acc or dance w i t h the FG D M pl an. W e conc l ude that , as a mat t erof l aw , thi s di d not co n sti tut e cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t her e w as a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood M i chel e w oul d be unabl e t o car e for K i m ber l yorK err y , orbot h, i n t he nea rfutur e. ¶34 A tor al ar gum ent , A D E S as s ert ed M i chel e had “ fr eel yadmi t t ed thats he w as notabl e t o t ake on a not herchi l d” w hen the t erm i nat i on hear i ng w as hel d i n D ece m ber2008.23

B utt he onl yt es t i m onyt hats uppor t s t hi s as s ert i on w as m ade i n the cont extof A D E S’ s pl an t o return K i m berly , a n d then K erry , on l yaft er J esse appeared to be st able. D uri ng cross exami nat i on byA D E S, M i chel e s t at ed:

Q
. Jo rd a n w a s re tu rn e d to y o u th is y e a r a b o u t A p ril of 2008? A
. Y es. Q
. A nd he see m ed t o have s t abi l i zed pr ett yw el l , do y ou agr ee? A
. Y es. Q
. A nd t hen K ai l ynn came hom e t o y ou aboutJ ul y of this y ea r? A
. Y es. Q
. A nd y ou fee l s he has s t abi l i zed? A
. Y es. Q
. A nd t hen J es s e came hom e t o y ou in about S ep tem b er? A
. Y es. Q
. D o y o u b e liev e th a t h e h a s s tab ili z e d y e t? A
. N o , n o t at th is p o in t. Q
. H ow m u ch lon g er d o y ou thi nk i tw i l l t ake for J e s s e t o s t a b i l i z e t o t h e f a mi l yo f f o u rth a ty o u h a v e n o w? A
. I ca n n o t s a ythat b ec au se I d o n ’tk n o w . B u t I ’m s ur e, w i t h t h e p ropers ervi ces i n pl ace , he’ l l geteval uat ed andM ich e le s tate d sh e h a d re q u e ste d a n e v a lu a tio n f o r Je ss e , b u t h e r te lep h o n e c a lls to 15 arr ange the eva l uat i on and addi t i onal serv ices had notbeen r eturned. M aur een t es t i fi ed M i chel e had r eques t ed a ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on forJ es s e ata chi l d and fam i l yt eam m eet i ng in O c to b e r 2 0 0 8 , b u t th e e v a lu a tio n h a d n o t y e t b e e n p e rf o rm e d b yth e f

o llo w in g m e e tin g in D e c e m b e r, “ e v e n th o u g h it[ h a d ] b e e n [ tw o ] m o n th s s in c e th e m o th e r b ro u g h t it u p .” A tor al ar gum ent , A D E S r el i ed on t he t es t i m ony of M aur een; K err y ’ s ki nder gart en 16 t eac her , W endy Par ks ; and her s peec h pathol ogi s t , B arbar a P i ckar d. B ut al t hough t her e w as t es t i m onyt hatt he chal l enges of par ent i ng K erry m i ght be gre at er fora par entw ho w or ked out s i de the home orhad otherchi l dr en t o r ai s e, none of t hem opi ned thatM i chel e w oul d be a n in a d e q u a te p a re n t. F o r ex a m p le, w h e n a sk e d w h e th e r M ich e le c o u ld p a re n t K e rryw ith t he otherchi l dr en i n t he home, M aur een r es ponded,
24 f in d o u t w h a t a c tu a lly is go in g o n in h is m in d a n d w e ’ll tak e it fr om t her e. 15 In co ntr ast , w hen asked d i rect l yabo ut herabil i t yt o p arentK i m berl yand K erry , M i ch e le
res po nd ed as fo l l ow s:

Q. D o y o u t h i n k , wi t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t h a ty ou h av e w it h y ourot hert hr ee c hi l dr en and i f K err yw er e i n the hom e, t haty ou w oul d be abl e t o gi ve K i m ber l yt he ki nd of at t ent i on t hats he nee ds t o keep he rs afe

— A
. O h, y es. Q
. — and nurtur ed? A
. Y es. A nd, al t hough A D E S as s er t ed ator al ar gum entt hatt her e had be en “e xt ens i ve t es t i m onyt hat [M i chele] w as not goi ng t o b e able t o m eetK e rry ’s speci al need s, ” t he w i t nesses w ho se tes tim o n yA D E S re lied o n h a d tes tifie d o n ly g e n e ra lly a b o u t th e c h a llen g e s a n yp a re n t w o u ld fac e i n r ai s i ng K err yand off er ed no opi ni on about w hetherM i chel e, s peci fi cal l y , coul d m eet t ho se chal l eng es. 16Q u i t e f r a n k ly, I d o n ’t th in k I c o u ld h a n d le [ K e rr y ’s ] n e e d s . . . w i t h t he ot her chi l dr en i n t he hom e. I t hi nk [s he] needs a l otof one- on- one at t ent i on, and w i t h t he ki nd of att ent i on t h at she n ee d s, itw o u ld b e a str ain f o r an y o n e, m o re o f a str ain f o r a ful l

- t i m e w or ki ng m other , s o I t hi nk i t w oul d be di ffi cul t forany m o th e r to h a n d le th a t. S im il arly , w h e n f

o s te r ca re li ce n sing ag en t, A n ab eli M ir an d a, w as a sk ed w h ethe r K erry w oul d benef

i tfr om bei ng i n a fa m i l yhavi ng fi ve chi l dr en, s he s t at ed, “[T] he ca r egi verhas to b e re all y o n top o f an y li tt le ch an g es . . . . ” B u t sh e ex p resse d n o o p inion ab o u t M iche le’s abi l i t yori nabi l i t yt o do s o. A nd Par ks and P i ckar d t es t i fi ed aboutK err y ’ s need f orone- onone att ent i on and thei rdai lycomm uni cat i ons w i t h M aur een, buttheyoffe r ed no opi ni on abo ut M i chele’ s abi l i t i es. 25 ¶35 A s A D E S p o in ts o u t, th is c o u rt h a s h e ld in o th e r c a se s th a t a p a re n t’s a b ili ty

“ to m e e t th e n e e d s o f

o n e o r m o re o f

h e r c h ild r e n . . . d o e s n o t es tab lish th a t sh e is a b le to par ental l of herchi l dr en. ” See I n r e Pi m a C ount

y Juv

. A ct i on N

o. S- 2460 , 162 A r i z. 1 56, 158- 59, 781 P. 2d 634, 636- 37 ( A pp. 1989) ( fi ndi ng par ent “bar el y capa bl e of pa r ent i ng t he

. . . chil dren present l yi n h er car e and [w as] i ncap able of d eal i ng w i t h the [otherchil dren’s ] sp e c ial n e e d s” ); I

n r e M ar i copa C ount

y Juv

. A ct i on N

os . JS- 5209 and JS- 4963 , 143 A r i z. 178, 187, 692 P. 2d 1027, 1036 ( A pp. 1984) ( fi ndi ng s t r es s of par ent i ng addi t i onal chi l dr en
w oul d exac erbat e mot her ’ s m ent al i l l nes s )
. B uti n thos e cas es , s ubs t ant i al evi dence had bee n p re s e n te d to e s ta b lis h a n in a b ility to p a re n t e f f e c tiv e ly. See Pi m a C ounty Juv. A ct i on N o. S- 2460 , 162 A r i z. at157, 781 P. 2d at 635 ( “The com m on t hr ead of the w i t nes s es ’ t es t i m ony
w as th at th e n atura l m o ther c o u ld b are lyco p e w ith the fiv e ch il d ren p rese n tl yli v ing w ith h er,
a n d th a t sh e w a s u n a b le to m e e t th e s p e c ia l n e e d s o f G . an d V .”); M

ar i copa C ount

y Juv

. A ct i on N os . JS- 5209 and JS- 4963 , 1 4 3 A ri z. at 1 8 6 -87 , 6 9 2 P
. 2 d at 10 3 5 -36 (j u v en il e c o u rt
re lied o n e x p e rt m e d ica l tes tim o n yth a t “m o th e r ’ s m e n tal c o n d iti o n a n d
. . . ab ili tyto26

di s char ge herpar ent al r es pons i bi l i t i es w oul d det er i or at e u n d er even m oder at e s t r es s ” and “s t r es s . . . w oul d i ncr eas e w i t h t he numberof chi l dr en i n hercar e, ” cr eat i ng hi gh pot ent i al forabus e and ne gl ecti f chi l dr en r eturned)
. N o s uch evi dence has been pr es ent ed her e. ¶36 O u r c o n c lu sio n is u n c h a n g e d b yth e ju v e n ile c o u rt’s c o n c e rn th a t, be c a u se th is i s t h e s e c o n d d e p e n d e n c yp r o c e e d i n g f o rth i s f a mi l y , t h e c h i l d r e n h a v e b e e n i n o u t - o f

- h o me p lace m en ts fo r fa r l o n g er tha n the f ift ee n cu m u lat ive m o n ths req u ir ed to term inate a p are n t’ s
r i ght s under§ 8- 533( B ) ( 8) ( c)
. A l t hough t hi s hi s t ory i s i ndi s put abl y unfor tunat e, w e ca nnot
a g re e th a t itp ro v id e s c lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e o f a su b sta n tial lik e lih o o d M ich e le w ill be unabl e t o par ent K i m ber l y or K err y i n t he near futur e. T he mer e pas s age of t i m e dur i ng
w h ich a c h ild is in c a re , w ith o u t m o re , is n o t a g ro u n d f o r te rm in a tin g th e p a re n t’s rig h ts under§ 8- 533( B ) ( 8) ( c)
. A nd w e do notbel i eve a ddit i onal t i m e i n car e maybe cons i der ed a proxyfor the indep end ent fi nd i ng s the st atute r equ i res . I I I . C oncl usi on ¶37 Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude the j uveni l e courterr ed i n fi ndi ng A D E S h a d present ed cl ear and con vinci ng evidence that i t had m ade a dil i gen t effo rt to
re u n if yM ich e le w ith K e rry o r K im b e rly o r th a t th e re is a su b sta n tial lik e lih o o d th a t M ich e le
w i l l b e u n ab le to par entei t herof the gi r l s i n t he nea rfutur e. A ccor di ngl y , w e r ever s e the
c o u r t ’ s o r d e rt e r m i n a t i n g M i c h e l e ’ s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o K e r r y a n d K i m b e r l y.

____________________________________ G A R Y E L
. V Á SQ U E Z , J udge27

CO NC UR RI NG:

____________________________________ PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

____________________________________ J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge