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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MICHELLE D., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, G.L., R.L., T.L., A.L., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0100

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD533158

The Honorable Jacki Ireland, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of H. Clark Jones, LLC, Mesa

By Clark Jones

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Cathleen E. Fuller

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 10-20-2020
MICHELLE D. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding 

Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Michelle D. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

adjudicating her four children dependent. For the following reasons, we 

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Over four years, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) 

investigated reports alleging Mother abused substances and neglected her 

children. Although the reports were unsubstantiated, in December 2019, 

DCS offered Mother in-home services, and service providers gave Mother 

beds and a dresser for the children. Mother stopped communicating with 

DCS and the service providers after taking the furniture.

¶3 In January 2020, police went to Mother’s home looking for an 

individual wanted for a probation violation. There, the police found Mother 

with a straw and half of a Fentanyl pill in her pocket. Her home was full of 

drug paraphernalia, and four other individuals fled as the police entered. 

Two of the children were present in the home. Mother denied any drug use, 

except for marijuana. The police did not arrest Mother but charged her with 

possession of narcotic drugs and paraphernalia. Over the next month, DCS 

asked Mother to submit to urinalysis and hair-sample testing, but Mother 

refused. So, DCS took custody of the children and petitioned for a 

dependency.

¶4 The juvenile court scheduled an initial dependency hearing,

but Mother failed to appear. The court found that Mother had received 

notice and her absence was without good cause. So, the court accelerated 

the dependency adjudication. At the hearing, the court admitted one report 

and made no oral or written findings of fact but concluded that the 

petition’s allegations were true by a preponderance of the evidence. The

court held the children were dependent regarding Mother. Mother timely 

appealed. Without requesting a stay of the appeal, Mother moved to set 

aside the default and dependency finding. In an unsigned minute entry, the 
MICHELLE D. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

court denied Mother’s motion. We have jurisdiction over Mother’s appeal

under Arizona Constitution Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 8-235(A) and 12-120.21(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 On appeal, Mother argues that the juvenile court lacked 

jurisdiction to rule on her motion to set aside the dependency adjudication. 

We need not reach this issue. As part of the order adjudicating the children 

dependent, the juvenile court found that “mother failed to appear without 

good cause shown and the Court will proceed in absentia.” Mother 

appealed this order, but she did not challenge the good-cause finding in her 

opening brief. See Robert Schalkenbach Fndtn. v. Lincoln Fndtn., Inc., 208 Ariz. 

176, 180, ¶ 17 (App. 2004) (“Generally, we will consider an issue not raised 

in an appellant’s opening brief as abandoned or conceded.”). Mother also 

did not amend her notice of appeal or file a new notice of appeal regarding 

her motion to set aside. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 104(B) (notice of appeal must 

designate “final order or part thereof appealed from”); cf. Navajo Nation v. 

MacDonald, 180 Ariz. 539, 547 (App. 1994) (court lacked jurisdiction when 

the party filed a notice of appeal before the superior court ruled on the 

party’s motion under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60 and the party did not file a new 

notice of appeal).

¶6 Mother next argues that the court’s dependency order omits 

findings of fact as required under Arizona Rule of Procedure for the 

Juvenile Court 55(E)(3). See Francine C. v. DCS, 249 Ariz. 289, 295–96, ¶¶ 12–

14 (App. 2020) (An appellate court cannot affirm a dependency order that 

lacks findings sufficiently specific to permit effective review.). After Mother 

filed her opening brief, this court granted DCS’s request to stay the appeal 

so the juvenile court could enter the requisite factual findings. See id. at 298, 

¶ 25, n.3. On June 5, 2020, the juvenile court issued an order entering factual 

findings supporting its dependency order. These findings are sufficiently 

specific to allow this court an effective review of the dependency order. 

Ruben M. v. ADES, 230 Ariz. 236, 241, ¶ 25 (App. 2012).

¶7 Finally, Mother asserts that no reasonable evidence supports

the court’s dependency order. We review the court’s dependency 

determination for an abuse of discretion and will affirm unless no 

reasonable evidence supports the court’s findings. Louis C. v. DCS, 237 Ariz. 

484, 488, ¶ 12 (App. 2015). The juvenile court “is in the best position to 

weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of the 

witnesses, and resolve disputed facts.” ADES v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, 
MICHELLE D. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

¶ 4 (App. 2004). The court must find a child dependent by a preponderance 

of the evidence. Louis C., 237 Ariz. at 490, ¶ 23.

¶8 A dependent child is one who is “[i]n need of proper and 

effective parental care and control and who has no parent . . . willing to 

exercise or capable of exercising such care and control” or “[a] child whose 

home is unfit by reason of abuse, neglect, cruelty or depravity by a parent.” 

A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(i), (a)(iii). Neglect is the “inability or unwillingness of 

a parent . . . to provide that child with supervision, food, clothing, shelter 

or medical care if that inability or unwillingness creates an unreasonable 

risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare . . . .” A.R.S. § 8-201(25)(a). The 

juvenile court “must consider the circumstances as they exist at the time of 

the dependency adjudication hearing in determining whether a child is a 

dependent child.” Shella H. v. DCS, 239 Ariz. 47, 50, ¶¶ 1, 12 (App. 2016); 

Francine C., 249 Ariz. at 300, ¶ 35.

¶9 Mother asserts that the only exhibit the superior court relied 

on, a DCS court report, contains “hearsay claims of what transpired in 

January of 2020.” Mother does not develop her argument further or assert 

that the report was inadmissible. See Christina G. v. ADES, 227 Ariz. 231, 

235, ¶ 14, n.6 (App. 2011) (failure to develop argument usually results in 

abandonment and waiver of issue). Moreover, she did not object to the 

report’s admission during the dependency hearing. See Adrian E. v. ADES, 

215 Ariz. 96, 103, ¶ 24 (App. 2007) (court correctly considered an exhibit 

when the appellant failed to object to its admission).

¶10 By failing to appear without good cause at the hearing, 

Mother waived her right to contest the dependency petition’s factual 

allegations. Brenda D. v. DCS, 243 Ariz. 437, 440, ¶ 2 (2018). Those admitted 

allegations, which were explicitly outlined in the court’s additional 

findings, include that four adults were using drugs in Mother’s home, 

which contained “drug paraphernalia,” including “burnt straws, burn 

marks, and tin foil.” Mother’s family members “disclosed that [she] has a 

substance abuse problem,” and she “refused to complete a urinalysis test 

and hair follicle for the Department.” Additionally, the court’s findings 

include that “Mother does not have stable employment,” “has been unable 

to provide food for the children,” “failed to protect the children,” and “[left]

them in the care of strangers who used drugs in the home and physically 

abused the children.” And Mother “allowed drug paraphernalia and 

[F]entanyl to be within the reach” of the youngest children. These admitted

facts constitute reasonable evidence supporting the dependency order.
MICHELLE D. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶11 We affirm the juvenile court’s dependency order.