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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LARA S., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, O.S., O.S., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0220 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD21161

 JS20335 

The Honorable Robert Ian Brooks, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek, Scottsdale

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Sandra L. Nahigian

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 12-3-2020
LARA S. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Lara S. (Mother) challenges the superior court’s order 

terminating her parental rights to her biological twin children. Because 

Mother has shown no error, the order is affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother is 31 years old. She began using methamphetamines

when she was 12. Other than when she has been incarcerated, Mother has 

not been sober for more than a year or two since then. Mother had three 

children before the twins. Her first child was born substance–exposed in 

late 2011, and the Department of Child Services (DCS) took custody of the 

child. Mother refused to participate in services, including for substance

abuse, and her parental rights were terminated in late 2012. Mother’s 

second child, V.F., was born substance–exposed in late 2018, and DCS took 

custody of the child. Again, Mother refused to participate in services and

her parental rights to V.F. were terminated in early 2020, based on 

substance abuse, abandonment, six months’ time-in-care and length of 

felony prison sentence. Mother’s third child lives with his father in South 

Carolina; Mother’s parental rights to that child have not been terminated.

¶3 In July 2019, Mother was arrested for absconding from 

probation (for a possession of heroin offense) and a new offense of unlawful 

flight from law enforcement. By that time, Mother had been on probation 

for more than eight years. She had participated in many outpatient 

substance abuse treatment programs, but continued to abuse drugs, 

showing “a lack of commitment to living a drug-free lifestyle.” While in 

custody for the probation violation, Mother completed several counseling 

and substance-abuse treatment programs. Within a month of being 

released, however, Mother returned to using methamphetamine. In 

September 2019, Mother was sentenced to two years in prison, with an early

release date in October 2020 and a maximum end date in April 2021. 
LARA S. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 When initially incarcerated, Mother tested positive for opiates 

and apparently first learned she was pregnant with the twins, who were

born in December 2019. DCS took custody of the twins soon after they were 

born and filed both a dependency petition and a petition to terminate her 

parental rights to the twins. DCS alleged two grounds for terminating 

parental rights: substance abuse and prior termination for the same cause 

within two years. DCS also alleged that termination would be in the best 

interests of the twins.

¶5 At a one-day termination adjudication in July 2020, Mother 

testified she had been using drugs up until she was incarcerated in July 2019

and admitted she would have continued to use drugs if she had not been 

arrested, meaning her children would likely have been born substanceexposed. The court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the twins on the 

grounds alleged and because termination would be in the twins’ best 

interests. This court has jurisdiction over Mother’s timely appeal pursuant 

to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes

(A.R.S.) sections 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A) and 12-2101(A) and Arizona Rules 

of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103–104 (2020).1

DISCUSSION

¶6 As applicable here, to terminate parental rights, a court must 

find by clear and convincing evidence that at least one statutory ground set 

out in A.R.S. § 8-533(B) has been proven and must find by a preponderance 

of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. See Kent 

K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288 ¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. 

Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249 ¶ 12 (2000). Because the superior court “is in the best 

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

witnesses, and resolve disputed facts,” this court will affirm an order 

terminating parental rights as long as it is supported by reasonable 

evidence. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93 ¶ 18 (App. 

2009) (citation omitted).

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
LARA S. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

I. Mother Has Not Shown the Superior Court Erred in Finding 

Terminating Her Parental Rights to the Twins Was the “Same 

Cause” as the Prior Termination.

¶7 The parent-child relationship may be terminated when a 

parent had her “parental rights to another child terminated within the 

preceding two years for the same cause and is currently unable to discharge 

parental responsibilities due to the same cause.” A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(10); see

also Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 48–49 ¶¶ 11–13 

(App. 2004). The “same cause” requirement refers to the same underlying 

factual cause that led to the prior termination. See Mary Lou C., 207 Ariz. at 

48 ¶ 11. 

¶8 The court terminated Mother’s parental rights to V.F. on 

various grounds, including chronic substance abuse. The court found 

Mother had a history of chronic substance abuse, beginning at age 12 and 

continuing until the trial. The court also found DCS made reasonable efforts 

to provide Mother with appropriate services (including substance–abuse 

treatment) but that Mother refused to participate. Given these findings, the 

court found Mother’s substance abuse would remain an issue in the future.

¶9 DCS alleged that the cause for terminating Mother’s parental 

rights to both V.F. and the twins included chronic substance abuse. In 

terminating Mother’s parental rights to the twins, the court held that “[t]he 

cause of this termination [is] virtually indistinguishable from [V.F.’s] 

termination. Mother remains incarcerated, has not demonstrated that she 

can maintain sobriety outside of a controlled environment, and has 

maintained almost no contact with” DCS. Mother argues the fact that she is 

now addressing mental health issues underlying her substance abuse 

differentiates the present circumstances from those that led to the 

termination of her parental rights to V.F. However, the record supports the 

court’s determination that Mother’s chronic drug abuse would continue, 

finding “the path to parenting could be a period of years given her history 

of substance abuse.” Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in 

finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother is currently unable 

to parent the twins because of the same cause that led to the termination of 

her parental rights to V.F.2

2 Given this conclusion, this court need not address Mother’s arguments 

regarding the other statutory ground found by the superior court. See 

Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 251 ¶ 27 (2000). 
LARA S. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

II. Mother Has Not Shown the Court Erred in Finding Termination

Was in the Twins’ Best Interests.

¶10 The best interests determination “focuses primarily upon the 

interest of the child, as distinct from those of the parent.” Kent K., 210 Ariz. 

at 287 ¶ 37. “[A] determination of the child’s best interest[s] must include a 

finding as to how the child would benefit from a severance or be harmed 

by the continuation of the relationship.” Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5 (1990) (citing cases). A best interests finding may be 

based on “the immediate availability of an adoptive placement.” Audra T. 

v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377 ¶ 5 (App. 1998). Maintaining 

sibling relationships also supports a best interests finding. See id. at 378 ¶ 6.

¶11 Here, the twins and V.F. currently are in a familial placement 

that is looking to adopt the twins. Although Mother has made some 

progress in addressing her mental health issues, the court found that 

delaying permanency for an extended (and perhaps indefinite) period was 

not in the twins’ best interests. See In re. Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS501568, 177 Ariz. 571, 577 (App. 1994). Accordingly, Mother has not shown 

the court erred in finding that DCS proved termination was in the twins’ 

best interests.

CONCLUSION

¶12 The superior court’s order terminating Mother’s parental 

rights to the twins is affirmed.