NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

TIFFANY F., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY1, G.F., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 14-0137

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD21136

The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Cathleen E. Fuller

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

Maricopa County Public Advocate, Mesa

By Suzanne W. Sanchez

Counsel for Appellant

 

1 Pursuant to S.B. 1001, Section 157, 51st Leg., 2nd Spec. Sess. (Ariz. 

2014) (enacted), the Department of Child Safety is substituted for the 

Arizona Department of Economic Security in this matter. See ARCAP 27.
TIFFANY F. v. DCS, G.F.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Samuel A. Thumma

joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Tiffany F. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental 

rights to her son, G.F. (“Child”). She claims the Department of Child Safety 

(“DCS”) did not prove the statutory ground for severance and that 

severance was not in Child’s best interests. For the following reasons, we 

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Child was born on May 19, 2010. In August 2011, the Child 

Abuse hotline received a report that Child was being neglected by Mother. 

The report stated that Child was not being adequately fed by Mother, that 

Mother had let her health insurance for Child lapse, and that Mother 

consistently passed care of Child onto her relatives. Another report in 

November 2011 stated that Mother had left Child with her relatives for an 

extended period of time without providing them insurance information or 

financial support for Child. 

¶3 In December 2011, DCS filed a dependency petition alleging 

Mother neglected Child by leaving him in the care of relatives for extended 

periods of time; Mother did not provide for Child’s basic needs, including 

health needs, or provide appropriate supervision. The juvenile court 

declared Child a temporary ward of the court, and DCS placed him with 

the same relatives who had been caring for him. Mother denied the 

allegations in the dependency petition, but submitted the dependency to 

the court on the petition. The juvenile court found Child dependent, set the 

case plan to be family reunification, and ordered that Child remain placed 

with Mother’s relatives. 

¶4 DCS then provided Mother various services, including a 

home assessment, a parent aide, counseling, a psychological evaluation, a 

psychiatric evaluation, family reunification teams, supervised visitation, 

and a case aide. Mother participated in the services provided by DCS and 
TIFFANY F. v. DCS, G.F.

Decision of the Court

3

progressed to the point where DCS attempted reunification with Child 

twice; however, both reunification attempts failed. In the first attempt, 

Mother was reunified with Child while living with a relative who was 

approved by DCS to be a safety monitor. However, because, among other 

things, Mother neglected caring for Child, she was asked to leave the 

residence. As a result, Child was again placed with Mother’s relatives in an 

out-of-home placement. A little over a year later, Mother was living in 

approved housing and was reunited with Child. However, shortly after 

Child was placed with Mother, Mother and Child moved out of that home 

without informing DCS of the move or of where they would move to. 

Upon discovering Mother’s new residence, DCS found Child and the home 

to be in disarray; Child was again removed from Mother’s care. 

¶5 In October 2013, DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental 

rights to Child. As relevant to this appeal, the petition alleged that Child 

was in an out-of-home placement for more than fifteen months and Mother 

had been unable to remedy the circumstances. 

¶6 Following the contested severance hearing, the juvenile court 

found that DCS proved this ground for severance. The juvenile court found 

that Child was initially removed from Mother’s care due to Mother’s 

unstable housing, lack of employment, and poor decision-making relative 

to Child. The court found that Mother did not keep a stable job for a full 

six month period and that she had not demonstrated any housing stability 

during the dependency. Because Mother continued to have housing and 

employment instability and to exhibit poor decision-making concerning 

Child despite the services provided by DCS, the juvenile court found it 

substantially likely Mother would be unable to effectively parent Child in 

the near future. The juvenile court also found that severance was in Child’s 

best interests because the current placement was providing for his needs 

and it would give Child the opportunity to have a stable, permanent home. 

Accordingly, the juvenile court granted the severance of Mother’s parental 

rights and Mother timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of review

¶7 “[W]e view the evidence and reasonable inferences to be 

drawn from it in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s decision.” 

Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18, 219 P.3d 296, 303 

(App. 2009). The juvenile court “is in the best position to weigh the 

evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve 
TIFFANY F. v. DCS, G.F.

Decision of the Court

4

disputed facts.” Jordan C., 223 Ariz. at 93, ¶ 18, 219 P.3d at 303 (quoting Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4, 100 P.3d 943, 945 (App. 

2004). Thus, we “accept the juvenile court’s findings of fact unless no 

reasonable evidence supports them.” Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 

227 Ariz. 231, 234, ¶ 12, 256 P.3d 628, 631 (App. 2011). 

II. Statutory Grounds for Severance

¶8 DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights under 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 8-533(B)(8)(c). DCS alleged that 

Child was in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period of 

fifteen months or longer, that despite diligent efforts to provide appropriate 

reunification services Mother was unable to remedy the circumstances that 

caused Child to be removed from Mother’s care, and that there is a 

substantial likelihood that Mother would not be capable of exercising 

proper and effective parental care and control in the near future. 

¶9 To justify severance of Mother’s parental rights, the juvenile 

court is required to find that DCS proved the alleged statutory ground by 

clear and convincing evidence. Christina G. 227 Ariz. at 234, ¶ 12, 256 P.3d 

at 631. As relevant here, in deciding whether DCS sustained its burden, the 

juvenile court is also required to “consider the availability of reunification 

services to the parent and the participation of the parent in these services.” 

Jordan C., 223 Ariz. at 93, ¶ 17, 219 P.3d at 303. For this severance ground, 

DCS must provide a parent with “the time and opportunity to participate 

in programs designed to improve the parent’s ability to care for the child” 

that have “a reasonable prospect of success.” Id. at 94, ¶ 20, 219 P.3d at 304. 

¶10 Child was removed from Mother’s care because Mother did 

not have stable housing, Mother was unemployed, and Child was not 

receiving proper medical care. DCS had received reports that Mother 

neglected Child and that he exhibited signs of having gone hungry for 

periods of time. Mother also failed to use a custom helmet provided by 

Child’s pediatrician to correct Child’s head shape, thereby causing the 

condition to be permanent. When DCS became involved, Mother was 

homeless and had left Child with her relatives for an extended period of 

time without providing financial support or a means for them to obtain any 

needed medical attention for Child. 

¶11 DCS made diligent efforts to provide Mother appropriate 

services during the nearly two-and-a-half year dependency. She was given 

a home assessment, she participated in individual counseling, she was 

provided supervised visitation, she was provided a parent aide, she 
TIFFANY F. v. DCS, G.F.

Decision of the Court

5

underwent a psychological and psychiatric evaluation, she was assisted by 

two family reunification teams, and she had a case aide. Mother 

participated in all the services to the point of Child being reunified with 

Mother on two separate occasions during the dependency. However, 

Mother did not implement what she was learning and her continued 

unstable housing resulted in Child being removed shortly after each 

reunification. 

¶12 Clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

conclusion that Mother was unable to remedy the circumstances that 

caused Child’s out-of-home placement and that it was substantially likely 

she would not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care 

and control in the near future. Despite participating in services, Mother 

continued to exhibit poor judgment with respect to Child and never secured 

stable employment during the course of the dependency. At one point, 

when Mother lost her job, she opted to pursue unemployment benefits 

rather than secure another job. She was employed at the time of the 

severance trial; however, that job was scheduled to end the day after the 

proceedings and she had made no arrangements for employment 

thereafter. Apart from a few items of clothing, Mother did not provide 

financial support for Child during the dependency. 

¶13 Additionally, Mother was unable to secure stable housing

throughout the dependency. Repeatedly, Mother voluntarily left or was 

asked to move out of her approved housing. The case manager testified 

that she was concerned Mother did not have a stable place to stay and that 

Mother did not appreciate the need to place Child’s needs above her own. 

When Mother lost her approved housing, rather than return Child to the 

approved placement with relatives, Mother brought him to live with her in 

an unapproved home that resulted in Child being removed from her 

custody. 

¶14 Mother’s conduct throughout the dependency indicated that 

the services were not producing necessary behavioral changes. Mother’s 

conduct during visitation indicated that she was not giving proper 

consideration to Child’s needs. Multiple times, Mother brought other 

children to her visitation with Child; one time, the child she brought with 

her had lice. 

III. Best Interests

¶15 In addition to finding DCS has proved a statutory ground for 

severance, “[t]he court must also find by a preponderance of the evidence 
TIFFANY F. v. DCS, G.F.

Decision of the Court

6

that termination is in the best interest of the child.” Christina G., 227 Ariz.

at 234, ¶ 12, 256 P.3d at 631. “To establish that severance of a parent’s rights 

would be in a child’s best interests, ‘the court must find either that the child 

will benefit from termination of the relationship or that the child would be 

harmed by continuation of the relationship.’” Id. at 237-38 ¶ 26, 256 P.3d at 

634-35. 

¶16 The record supports the juvenile court’s determination that 

severance is in Child’s best interests. Child needs permanency. He has 

been in an out-of-home placement for the majority of his life. Child’s life 

has been repeatedly disrupted by DCS’s attempts to reunify him with 

Mother during the dependency. Additionally, Child is adoptable and is 

currently placed with relatives in an adoptive home; severance of Mother’s 

rights would provide him stability. 

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the reasons above, we affirm the juvenile court’s 

termination of Mother’s parental rights to Child.