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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MARTHA C., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, T.F., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 21-0269

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD39503

The Honorable David O. Cunanan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate’s Office, Mesa

By Suzanne W. Sanchez

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By James William Rappaport

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 1-11-2022
MARTHA C. v. DCS, T.F.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Martha C. (“Mother”) appeals from the superior court’s order 

terminating her parental relationship to T.F. For the following reasons, we 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In May 2020, Mother gave birth to T.F., who tested positive 

for amphetamines and fentanyl. Mother admitted to using illicit substances 

throughout her pregnancy, including on the day of T.F.’s birth. As a result, 

T.F. suffered from respiratory distress and withdrawal symptoms, and 

required oxygen, morphine stabilization, and a feeding tube. Due to 

Mother’s failure to receive appropriate prenatal care, T.F. suffered from 

bacterial sepsis, which required antibiotics for treatment. T.F. also had a 

fractured upper right arm that possibly occurred in utero but was never 

adequately explained.

¶3 At the request of the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”), 

Mother submitted a hair follicle sample, which tested positive for 

methamphetamines and amphetamines. DCS took temporary physical 

custody of T.F. and filed a dependency petition. T.F. was later released 

from the hospital to a foster placement. T.F. was found dependent as to 

Mother in July 2020, when Mother failed to appear for a contested hearing, 

where the court adopted a family reunification case plan.

¶4 DCS offered Mother reunification services, including 

substance-abuse assessment and treatment, random drug testing, 

behavioral health assessment and treatment, a parent aide, transportation,

and visitation. Mother failed to call in for drug testing, and besides the

initial hair follicle, she did not submit any other samples for drug testing. 

Mother closed out of her substance-abuse assessment and treatment 

referrals due to lack of contact. Mother failed to show up for, or confirm, a 

majority of her visits and skill sessions. Mother closed out unsuccessfully 
MARTHA C. v. DCS, T.F.

Decision of the Court

3

from the parent-aide services and failed to enhance any of her sixteen 

diminished capacities.

¶5 Mother failed to appear for most of the court hearings, 

including the dependency hearing, report and review hearings, and a 

permanency planning hearing. In April 2021, DCS moved to terminate 

Mother’s parental relationship on the basis of neglect, substance abuse, 

time-in-care for a period of six months or longer, and time-in-care for a 

period of nine months or longer. At the initial severance hearing, where 

Mother was present, the superior court set a date for the pretrial conference 

for the termination adjudication. The court warned Mother that if she failed 

to appear at the pretrial conference, the court could proceed to an 

adjudication of the issues in her absence.

¶6 At the pretrial conference, Mother was not present. The court 

found Mother had no good cause for her failure to appear and proceeded

to a termination adjudication in her absence. Following the hearing, the 

superior court terminated the parental relationship on the grounds of 

substance abuse, abuse and neglect, time-in-care for a period of six months 

or longer, and time-in-care for a period of nine months or longer.

¶7 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

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

-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶8 Mother argues the superior court failed to make the required 

findings of fact and conclusions of law in its termination ruling.

¶9 The superior court may terminate a parent-child relationship 

if it finds clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground for 

termination under A.R.S. § 8-533(B), and that termination is in the child’s 

best interests. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 12 

(2000). “Every order of the court terminating the parent-child relationship 

. . . shall be in writing and shall recite the findings on which the order is 

based . . . .” A.R.S. § 8-538(A). The superior court is not required to list 

every single fact it relied upon in making its findings, but it must include 

the “essential and determinative facts on which the conclusion was 

reached.” Logan B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 532, 537, ¶ 15 (App. 

2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review de novo 

the sufficiency of findings of fact as a mixed question of fact and law.

Francine C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 249 Ariz. 289, 296, ¶ 14 (App. 2020).
MARTHA C. v. DCS, T.F.

Decision of the Court

4

¶10 Citing Francine C., DCS contends Mother waived this 

argument by failing to raise it with the superior court. However, Francine 

C. held that a party cannot waive the superior court’s failure to include 

findings of fact in a dependency order. 249 Ariz. at 295-98, ¶¶ 12, 15-25. 

Although DCS asks that we not apply Francine C. to this termination case, 

findings of fact in a termination order would appear to be at least as 

important as those in a dependency order. Accordingly, and noting that a 

finding of waiver is discretionary, Jessicah C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 248 Ariz. 

203, 207, ¶¶ 18-21 (App. 2020) (citing cases), we will address the merits of 

Mother’s arguments regarding the lack of necessary findings.

I. Statutory Ground

¶11 Mother’s rights were terminated based upon several statutory 

grounds, including substance abuse. To support a termination on the 

grounds of substance abuse, the superior court must find that Mother’s 

drug abuse is chronic, it hinders her ability to discharge her parental 

responsibilities, and it will continue for a prolonged indeterminate period.

A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3).

¶12 The superior court included findings that T.F. tested positive 

for amphetamines and fentanyl at birth, which led to serious health 

complications, and Mother admitted to using illicit substances on the day 

of delivery. The superior court also found that Mother has admitted a 

history of substance abuse, as well as recent and ongoing substance use 

throughout the termination and dependency proceedings. The superior 

court also noted that Mother had not participated in a substance-abuse 

treatment program or demonstrated sobriety throughout the termination 

proceedings. The court included findings that Mother submitted a hair 

follicle that tested positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines, 

Mother closed out of two substance-abuse treatment referrals due to lack of 

engagement, and Mother failed to submit to any random urinalysis tests.

¶13 Mother argues the court failed to include findings regarding 

her ability to discharge her parental responsibilities because of substance 

abuse.

¶14 Here, the record contains uncontested evidence that Mother

has significant substance-abuse issues that hinder her ability to protect T.F., 

make appropriate decisions, and lead a stable life. See Raymond F. v. Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 378, ¶¶ 20-22 (App. 2010) (finding the 

parent was unable to discharge his parental responsibilities where he did 

not make appropriate decisions, protect his children, or provide his
MARTHA C. v. DCS, T.F.

Decision of the Court

5

children with a safe home). Mother’s substance-abuse issues have 

prevented her from obtaining employment or another form of income to

support her child. Mother also admitted her home was not safe or suitable

for her child. Further, Mother’s drug abuse during her pregnancy and her 

failure to receive appropriate prenatal care led to T.F.’s health 

complications at birth.

¶15 The record clearly demonstrates Mother was unable to 

discharge her parental responsibilities because of substance abuse, and the 

superior court’s remaining findings sufficiently support termination on the 

ground of substance abuse. Because the court need only find one ground 

to support a termination, we need not address the written findings related 

to the remaining statutory grounds. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 

203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3 (App. 2002).

II. Best Interests

¶16 Finally, the superior court must find that termination is in the 

child’s bests interests. See Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146, 149-

50, ¶ 8 (2018). The superior court included findings that termination was 

in T.F.’s best interests because “it would further the plan of adoption, which 

would provide the child with permanency and stability.” The superior 

court further found that T.F. is currently in an adoptive placement that is 

meeting all of her needs. See Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 

345, 350, ¶ 23 (App. 2013); Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 

377, ¶ 5 (App. 1998). The superior court noted that continuing the parentchild relationship would be detrimental to T.F. because the child would be 

left “to linger in care for an indeterminate period since [T.F.] does not have 

parents who are able to care for her.” The superior court included the 

requisite findings. We find no error.

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.