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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

NEVILLE T., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, A.T., Q.T., S.T., A.S., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 17-0234

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. B8015JD201404047

 B8015JD201404046

The Honorable Rick A. Williams, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Legal Defender's Office, Kingman

By Eric Devany

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa

By Ashlee N. Hoffmann

Counsel for Appellee DCS

FILED 12-14-2017
NEVILLE T. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Neville T. ("Father") appeals the superior court's order 

terminating his parental rights. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father is the parent of the four children at issue in these 

consolidated cases, the oldest of whom was born in 2003 and the youngest 

of whom was born in 2015.

1 For most of the pendency of this case, Father 

lived with his girlfriend, who is the mother of three of the children. The 

superior court also terminated her parental rights. Only Father is a party 

to this appeal.

¶3 In mid-July 2014, the Department of Child Safety ("DCS")

received a report that Father had left his eleven-year-old daughter to care 

for her sixteen-year-old brother, who is autistic, and her one-year-old 

brother while Father was at work. At about the same time, DCS also 

received a report following the birth of Father's second daughter that 

Father's girlfriend, the infant's mother, was unable to care for her, and that 

Father did not visit the baby in the hospital. The DCS case manager who 

visited the home in response to the report found it had electricity in only 

one room, was very hot, was infested with cockroaches, and was in disarray 

with a very unpleasant odor.

¶4 DCS took all the children into care and filed dependency

petitions against Father alleging neglect based on domestic violence, 

substance abuse, failure to provide adequate housing and failure to provide 

 

1 This court views the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining 

the superior court's findings. See Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 218 

Ariz. 205, 207, ¶ 2 (App. 2008).
NEVILLE T. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

adequate supervision.

2 At the outset of the proceedings, DCS offered 

Father family reunification services and referrals for substance-abuse 

assessment, random urinalysis testing, counseling, parenting classes, 

parent-aide services and transportation to out-of-town services. DCS also

planned to provide in-home services to Father once he successfully 

completed the other services. By December 2014, however, Father was not 

able or willing to engage in services, saying he preferred to wait to fully 

engage in services if and when ordered to after a finding of dependency by 

the court.

¶5 At the April 2015 dependency hearing, Father denied the 

allegations but submitted the issue of dependency to the court. In July, DCS 

re-referred Father for substance-abuse assessment, urinalysis testing, 

parent-aide services and transportation.

¶6 Meanwhile, Father's girlfriend gave birth to another child in 

August 2015, and DCS filed a supplemental dependency petition, alleging 

neglect based on Father's two open dependency cases and failure to protect 

the children from his girlfriend's substance abuse. Specifically, DCS alleged 

Father had not completed any of his case plan goals and continued to fail 

to show appropriate behavioral changes and parenting skills. By 

November 2015, Father had submitted clean drug screens and had 

completed parenting classes, but failed to engage in individual counseling 

and domestic violence classes. Father was unemployed, and DCS had

safety concerns with his residence, primarily involving his girlfriend, that 

rendered it inappropriate for the children.

¶7 In December 2015, the superior court found Father's oldest 

daughter and two of her younger siblings dependent as to Father, and 

adopted a case plan of family reunification. The court found the youngest 

child dependent the following month.

¶8 At a review hearing in June 2016, counsel for DCS noted 

Father was doing well; however, his girlfriend was not engaging in services 

and had been arrested on domestic violence charges. According to the DCS 

lawyer, Father and the girlfriend were living together but claimed they 

were no longer romantically involved and were merely roommates.

¶9 Three months later, in September 2016, DCS remained 

concerned with Father's ability to safely parent the children due to his 

 

2 The oldest son turned 18 during these proceedings and was not 

named in the severance order the court ultimately entered.
NEVILLE T. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

continued relationship with his girlfriend and his lack of social support.

The superior court ordered the case plans changed to severance and 

adoption, and DCS moved to terminate Father's parental rights based on 

several grounds, including out-of-home placement.

¶10 In detailed orders following a February 2017 severance 

hearing, the superior court granted the motion to sever based, inter alia, on 

its finding that DCS proved, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes 

("A.R.S.") section 8-533(B)(8)(c) (2017), that the children had been in an outof-home placement for 15 months or longer, that Father had been unable to 

remedy the circumstances that caused the placement and there was a 

substantial likelihood that he would not be capable of exercising proper and 

effective parental care and control in the near future.3

¶11 Father filed timely notices of appeal. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-235(A) (2017) and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the 

Juvenile Court 103(A).

DISCUSSION

¶12 On appeal, Father argues the evidence did not support the 

superior court's findings that he been unable to remedy the circumstances 

that caused the children to be taken into care and that there was a 

substantial likelihood that he would not be capable of exercising proper and 

effective parental care and control in the near future.

¶13 "Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, 

custody, and management of their children." Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 

279, 284, ¶ 24 (2005). Even fundamental rights are not absolute, however. 

Id. A court may sever those rights if it finds clear and convincing evidence 

of one of the statutory grounds for severance and finds by a preponderance 

of the evidence that severance is in the child's best interests. See A.R.S. §§ 

8-533(B), -537(B) (2017); Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 281-82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41. Because 

the superior court "is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the 

parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts," this 

court will affirm an order terminating parental rights if reasonable evidence 

supports it. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 

2009).

¶14 The superior court severed Father's rights and the girlfriend's 

rights to the children in the same minute entry order. The court noted that 

 

3 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, we cite the current 

version of statutes and rules unless otherwise indicated.
NEVILLE T. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

the girlfriend had tested positive for methamphetamine early in the 

dependency, and, although she was drug-free in January and February 

2016, she stopped testing after that and was inconsistent with parent-aide 

services. Although the girlfriend enrolled in an inpatient drug program in 

August 2016, she left the program early and against advice about 10 days 

later. The court also found the girlfriend was convicted of disorderly 

conduct/domestic violence in November 2013 and assault/domestic 

violence and disorderly conduct/domestic violence in June 2016. As for 

Father, the court found that although he completed his case plan of services, 

he continued to maintain a relationship with his girlfriend, whose pattern 

of drug use and domestic violence put the children at risk.

¶15 At the severance hearing, Father did not dispute that his 

girlfriend had a history of substance abuse and testified he believed she was 

continuing to abuse drugs even at the time of the hearing. Nevertheless, 

Father testified that she was not a danger to the children. Father testified 

that the girlfriend continued to live with him until October 2016, four 

months before the severance hearing, when he drove her to Los Angeles. 

He testified that the girlfriend returned to Arizona in December. Although 

Father denied he continued to have a relationship with the girlfriend and 

claimed he would not take her back if she returned to his residence, he 

admitted he received three or four telephone calls a week from her. The 

DCS case manager testified DCS received reports from Father's family that 

the girlfriend was present in Father's home in December. Although Father 

denied allowing the girlfriend into his home then, he conceded he brought 

the girlfriend to visits with the children in December.

¶16 The case manager reiterated her concern for the stability of 

Father's home due to the girlfriend's history of domestic violence, and her 

concern that Father would not protect the children from domestic violence 

from the girlfriend, who the case manager testified "has a tendency to show 

up" in Father's home. The case manager testified DCS remained concerned

the girlfriend was not out of the home permanently and had grave concerns 

regarding her ongoing contact with Father. But for the girlfriend's presence 

in his home, Father would have transitioned to unsupervised visits; in fact, 

DCS considered transitioning one of the children back to Father's care in 

early 2016, but did not move to do so because the girlfriend continued to be 

present in the home.

¶17 The DCS case manager also testified that although Father was 

receptive to suggestions, DCS had ongoing concerns regarding Father's 

ability to appropriately care for the children. Father brought snacks to his 

visits with the children, but he repeatedly provided snacks that caused 
NEVILLE T. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

6

them stomach issues; he also was slow to change dirty diapers during visits.

Further, the case manager testified she was concerned that Father struggled 

during visits to control the children so that they were safe; the case manager 

also said she concerned that Father would be unable to meet the children's 

daily basic needs. 

¶18 The superior court found that although Father participated in 

a number of services, "[p]articipation does not equate to progress." The 

court found Father failed to demonstrate he was able to safely and 

appropriately parent the children and concluded Father was not credible 

when he testified he would not allow the girlfriend back into his home. We 

defer to the court's credibility determinations, and we will not reweigh the 

evidence on appeal. See Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 

47, ¶ 8 (App. 2004); Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 

4 (App. 2002).

¶19 The record contains reasonable evidence to support the 

superior court's findings and conclusions. The children have been in outof-home care for years. In the period preceding severance, Father failed to 

appreciate and respond to DCS's concerns regarding his relationship with 

the girlfriend, who posed a safety risk to the children due to her substance 

abuse and history of domestic violence.

¶20 Finally, although Father does not challenge the superior

court's finding that severance was in the children's best interests, the record 

supports that finding. See Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS–500274, 167 

Ariz. 1, 5 (1990). The record supports the court's finding that termination 

of Father's rights would further the plan to provide the children with 

permanency and stability. See Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 

332, 334, ¶ 6 (App. 2004). The children are doing well in foster placements 

that are meeting all their needs, and the children are adoptable. See Mary 

Lou C., 207 Ariz. at 50, ¶ 19; Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz.

376, 377, ¶ 5 (App. 1998).
NEVILLE T. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

7

CONCLUSION

¶21 For the reasons stated above, we affirm the order severing 

Father's parental rights.