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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ANNA S., MICHAEL T., Appellants,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, E.S.T., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 19-0361

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD530848

The Honorable Jennifer E. Green, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek, P.C., Scottsdale

By John L. Popilek

Counsel for Appellant Anna S.

Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant Michael T.

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Thomas Jose

Counsel for Appellees Department of Child Safety

FILED 4-30-2020
ANNA S., MICHAEL T. v. DCS, E.S.T.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Anna S. (“Mother”) and Michael T. (“Father”) each appeal the 

juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights to their child 

(“Child”). For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In April 2017, then nineteen-month-old Child was found 

alone, unsupervised and crying outside of the hotel where Mother and 

Child were staying. When police arrived, they observed that Mother 

smelled of alcohol and showed signs of intoxication. Father, who lived in 

Oregon, had not had a relationship with Child for approximately a year. 

Police contacted the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) and Child was 

placed in the care of a relative in Arizona. 

¶3 Following DCS’ filing of a dependency petition, the court 

found Child dependent due to Mother’s neglect, substance abuse, and 

mental health issues and because of Father’s abandonment, neglect, failure 

to protect, and past domestic violence towards Mother. 

¶4 Over the next several months DCS offered a range of services 

to the parents that included, in part, substance abuse testing and treatment, 

domestic violence counseling, psychological consultation and evaluation, 

transportation, supervised visits and parent aide services. By January 2018, 

approximately nine months later, Mother’s contact with DCS and 

participation in reunification services had been inconsistent. That same 

month, Mother was involved in a physical altercation with the adult 

girlfriend of the relative whom Child was placed with, after Mother and the 

relative had been consuming alcohol. Father’s participation in services had 

been more regular than Mother’s and DCS considered placement of the 

Child with Father. However, individual(s) living with Father were 

unwilling to submit to a background check, therefore placement with 

Father did not occur at that time.
ANNA S., MICHAEL T. v. DCS, E.S.T.

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 In July 2018, Child was moved to Oregon and placed with a 

different relative. The case plan was changed from family reunification to 

severance and adoption. In August 2018, DCS filed a motion to terminate 

each parents’ rights to the Child, alleging Mother’s neglect and history of 

substance abuse, and that both parents were unable to timely remedy the 

circumstances giving rise to Child’s out-of-home placement. 

¶6 In February 2019, Father’s second request to have Child 

placed with him was approved. After a transition period, in May 2019 Child 

moved in with Father. A safety plan allowed Mother visits with the Child 

if supervised by the relative Child was previously placed with.

¶7 In June 2019, Oregon DHS (the equivalent to Arizona DCS) 

made two unannounced visits to Father’s residence to check on Child’s 

welfare. At the first visit they found luggage, the contents of which

belonged to a woman. Father claimed the luggage belonged to a female 

friend. At the second visit, Oregon DHS found Mother at the home. Father 

admitted to lying to Oregon DHS previously, and that it was Mother’s 

luggage at the house. Mother appeared to be intoxicated, and both parents 

refused a drug test. Because Father allowed Mother access to the Child 

outside of the DCS approved safety plan, Child was placed with a third

relative in Arizona.

¶8 Between January 2019 and June 2019, Mother participated in 

substance abuse treatment in Oregon, but was unable to produce evidence 

that she successfully completed the program.

¶9 A severance trial was held in August 2019. The juvenile court 

later issued a comprehensive ruling terminating both parents’ rights to 

Child. Mother and Father each timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction 

pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1), and Arizona Rule of 

Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103(A).

DISCUSSION

¶10 “To justify termination of the parent-child relationship, the 

[juvenile] court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one of 

the statutory grounds set out in [A.R.S. §] 8-533, and also that termination 

is in the best interest of the child.” Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec., 196 

Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 12 (2000); see also A.R.S. § 8-533(B).

1 As the trier of fact in a 

1 The court must also find that DCS made diligent efforts to provide 

appropriate reunification services. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8). On appeal, 
ANNA S., MICHAEL T. v. DCS, E.S.T.

Decision of the Court

4

termination proceeding, the juvenile court “is in the best position to weigh 

the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and 

resolve disputed facts.” Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 

334, ¶ 4 (App. 2004). We “accept the juvenile court’s findings of fact ‘unless 

no reasonable evidence supports those findings’ and will affirm its 

severance order unless the order is clearly erroneous.” Id. at 334, ¶ 4

(quoting Jennifer B. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec., 189 Ariz. 553, 555 (App. 1997).

¶11 Both parents challenge the sufficiency of evidence justifying

termination of the parent-child relationship under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c),

which requires that: (1) the child has been in an out-of-home placement for 

a cumulative total period of fifteen months or longer; (2) the parent has been 

unable to remedy the circumstances that caused the child to be in an outof-home placement; and (3) there is a substantial likelihood that the parent 

will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and 

control in the near future.

I. Fifteen Months Out-of-Home Placement

¶12 Neither parent challenges whether Child was placed out-ofhome for more than fifteen months. For more than two uninterrupted years, 

from April 2017 to May 2019, Child was in an out-of-home placement. At 

the time of the severance trial, Child had been in an out-of-home placement 

for twenty-seven of the twenty-eight months the dependency action had 

spanned.

II. Inability to Remedy Circumstances Causing Out-of-Home Placement

¶13 Mother argues that by the time the severance trial took place

she had remedied the circumstances that led to Child’s removal from her 

care in 2017. Although there is evidence Mother made efforts to participate 

in a substance abuse treatment program from January 2019 to June 2019 in 

Oregon, and sporadically throughout the dependency, Mother was unable 

to provide proof that she successfully completed the program. While in the 

program and within a few months of the severance trial, following a dispute

with her then boyfriend, Mother admitted to “drinking all weekend.” And 

when Oregon DHS made an unannounced visit to Father’s home, Mother 

was present and appeared to be intoxicated. Mother declined a referral to 

continue substance abuse treatment upon her return to Arizona.

neither parent challenges this issue, nor whether termination of the parentchild relationship was in Child’s best interest.
ANNA S., MICHAEL T. v. DCS, E.S.T.

Decision of the Court

5

¶14 In addition to Mother’s failure to meaningfully address her 

alcohol use and demonstrate long-term sobriety, the juvenile court also 

determined Mother failed to establish stable housing or employment. The 

court’s conclusion that each of these circumstances remained unremedied 

is supported by the record.

¶15 Although it was not Father’s substance abuse, housing or 

employment that initially gave rise to the dependency action and Child’s 

out-of-home placement, Father failed to protect Child from those 

circumstances relating to Mother. Two years after Child’s removal from 

Mother, Child was placed with Father for a month. During that month 

Father “violated the rules of the safety plan at least twice,” and lied about 

one of them, by allowing Mother access to the Child without supervision of 

an approved adult and “allowed Mother to be intoxicated around [Child].” 

The juvenile court’s findings are supported by the record, as is the court’s 

conclusion that the circumstance of Father’s failure to protect Child and 

ensure her safety from Mother’s alcohol use remained unremedied by the 

time the severance trial took place.

III. Substantial Likelihood that the Parents Will Not Be Capable of 

Exercising Proper and Effective Parental Care and Control in the Near 

Future

¶16 The dependency spanned more than two years and Mother 

never demonstrated she could be consistently sober. Her efforts and 

willingness to engage in services were inconsistent throughout. Although 

Mother did enroll in a substance abuse treatment program in 2019, her 

failure to show proof of completing the program, coupled with her 

significant history of alcohol abuse, led the juvenile court to conclude that 

there was a substantial likelihood Mother’s alcohol dependence would not 

change in the near future. In addition, her intoxication in June 2019, when 

Oregon DHS visited Father’s home was within only a few months of the 

severance trial. Thus, reasonable evidence supports the court’s conclusion 

that there remained a substantial likelihood Mother would be incapable of 

exercising proper and effective parental care and control into the near 

future.

¶17 Although Father generally engaged in and completed

services, the juvenile court gave great weight to Father’s decision to allow 

Mother access to the Child within weeks of Child being placed with Father.

As discussed supra, the court noted Mother was intoxicated at the time.

And, although Father denies the same, as well as knowing that he could not 
ANNA S., MICHAEL T. v. DCS, E.S.T.

Decision of the Court

6

supervise Mother’s visitation with Child, the court made a credibility 

determination and concluded otherwise.2

¶18 The court noted that “[Father] has shown that he will not act 

to protect [Child] from unsupervised contact with Mother or to protect 

[Child] from Mother’s substance abuse.” Father’s ability and willingness to 

protect Child from Mother’s alcohol use was at the center of the out-ofhome placement and dependency from the outset. Thus, given the closeness

in time between Father’s willingness to allow an intoxicated Mother near 

Child in violation of the safety plan, and the severance trial that occurred 

more than two years after Child was first placed in an out-of-home 

placement, the record supports the court’s conclusion that “[Father’s] 

actions demonstrate he is unable to care for [Child] safely in the near 

future.” Although we recognize that a different judicial officer could come 

to a different conclusion, we cannot say this conclusion was clearly 

erroneous.

¶19 Because we affirm the juvenile court’s order on the basis of 

fifteen months in an out-of-home placement, we need not address whether 

termination as to Mother was appropriate under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2)

(neglect of a child) or A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) (history of chronic substance 

abuse). See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3 (App. 

2002) (“If clear and convincing evidence supports any one of the statutory 

grounds on which the juvenile court ordered severance, we need not 

address claims pertaining to the other grounds.”).

CONCLUSION

¶20 We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating both 

Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. 

2 The juvenile court is in the best position to weigh the evidence and 

determine the credibility of testimony in making its findings. See Oscar O., 

209 Ariz. at 334, ¶ 4.