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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

SARA J., Appellant,

v.

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

No. 1 CA-JV 15-0112 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. JD27773 

The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Commissioner

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Sara J., Glendale

Appellant 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Dawn R. Williams 

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
SARA J. v. DCS, J.J. 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined. 

N O R R I S, Judge: 

¶1 Sara J. (“Mother”) appeals from the juvenile court’s order 

terminating her parental rights to her son, J.J., born June 18, 2013.1 On 

appeal, Mother argues the Arizona Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) 

failed to present clear and convincing evidence to terminate her parental 

rights under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 8-533(B)(8)(a) 

(Supp. 2015).2 We disagree.3 

¶2 We will affirm a court’s order terminating parental rights 

unless we conclude, as a matter of law, that no reasonable person could find 

the essential elements proven by clear and convincing evidence. Denise R. 

v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 221 Ariz. 92, 94-95, ¶¶ 9-10, 210 P.3d 1263, 1265-

66 (App. 2009). A juvenile court may terminate parental rights under A.R.S. 

§ 8-533(B)(8)(a) if it finds the child has been in out-of-home placement for 

 

1Mother also challenges orders terminating her parental 

rights to three other children, which became final by 2012. These arguments 

are not properly before us because they are not timely. Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 

104(A).

2Although the Arizona Legislature amended A.R.S. § 8-533 

after DCS filed the dependency petition, the revisions are immaterial to the 

resolution of this appeal. Thus, we cite to the current version. 

3Mother also argues the superior court should not have 

terminated her parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) for mental illness 

and chronic substance abuse. Because clear and convincing evidence 

supports the superior court’s termination order under A.R.S. § 8-

533(B)(8)(a), we do not need to address these arguments on appeal. See, e.g., 

Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 376, ¶ 14, 231 P.3d 377, 

380 (App. 2010) (appellate court will affirm a termination order if any one 

of the statutory grounds for termination is proven). 
SARA J. v. DCS, J.J. 

Decision of the Court 

3

nine months or longer, DCS has made a “diligent effort” at reunification, 

and “the parent has substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy 

the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement.”4 

¶3 In February 2014, DCS took J.J. into care and petitioned for 

dependency because of Mother’s substance abuse and mental health issues. 

By the termination hearing in March 2015, J.J. had been in out-of-home 

placement for over a year. At the hearing, the DCS caseworker testified 

DCS had offered numerous services to Mother to help her address her 

mental health and substance abuse issues, including individual counseling, 

parent aide services, psychological evaluation, visitation, and substance 

abuse treatment and testing, but she had failed to “meaningfully participate 

in those services.” The March 2015 DCS progress report admitted at the 

hearing supported the caseworker’s testimony, disclosing Mother had 

intermittently participated in only visitations and drug testing and had 

failed two drug tests. By February 2015, after multiple renewed referrals 

and rescheduled appointments, all services offered had closed due to 

Mother’s lack of compliance. 

¶4 Based on this evidence, the juvenile court found DCS had 

made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, but Mother had willfully 

refused to participate in the services DCS offered, and severance was 

therefore appropriate under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(a). The evidence amply 

supports this finding. 

¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s order 

terminating Mother’s parental rights to J.J. 

 

4We note Mother has not argued on appeal that the evidence 

failed to show termination was in the best interests of the child or that the 

juvenile court’s finding that her failure to appear resulted in a waiver of her 

rights. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 65(C)(6)(c).