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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

LARA S. , Appellant
,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, O.S., O.S. , Appellee s

.

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 C ounsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety FILED 12-3-2020LARA 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 biologica l twin children. Because Mother has shown no error, the order i s 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 t wins. 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 t o 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 ; Mot her’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 ab use drugs, showing “a lack of commitment to living a drug

- free lifestyle

. ” W hile in custody for the probation violation
, Mother completed several counseling and substance

- abuse treatment programs

. W ithin a month of being released, however, Mother returned to using methamphetamine. In September 2019, Mother w as sentenced to two years in prison, with a n 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 incarcerat ed , Mother tested positive for opiates and apparently first learned she was pregnant with the t wins , who were born in December 2019

. DCS took custody of the t wins soon after they were born and filed both a dependency petition and a petition to terminate her parental rights to the t wins

. DCS alleged two grounds for terminat ing parental rights : substance abuse and p rior termination for the same cause within two years

. DCS also alleged that termination would be in the best interests of the t wins

. ¶5 At a one

- day termination adjudication in July 2020, Mother testified she had bee n 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 substance

exposed

. T he court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the t wins on the grounds alleged and because termina tion would be in the t wins’ best interests. This court has jurisdiction over Mother’s timely a ppeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, A rizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 8

- 235(A), 12

- 120.21(A) and 12

- 2101(A) and Ariz ona R ules of P rocedure for the Juv enile C our t 103

– 104 (20 20 ). 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. Jord an 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 t he Superior Court Err ed in Finding Terminating Her Parental Rights to t he Twins Was t he “Same Cause” a s t he Pr ior Termination

. ¶7 The parent

- c hild 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 T he court terminated Mother’s parental rights to V.F. on various grounds, including chronic substance abus e

. T he 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 r easonable 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 t wins included chronic substance abuse. In terminating Mother’s parental rights to the t wins, the court held that “[t]he cause of this terminatio n [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

c ourt ’s determination that Mother’s ch ronic 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 t wins 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 t he Co urt Err ed in Finding Termination Was i n t he 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 28 7 ¶ 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. JS

500274 , 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 t wins and V.F. currently are in a familial placement that is looking to adopt the t wins

. A lthough 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 t wins’ best interests

. See In re. Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS

501568 , 177 Ariz. 571, 577 (App. 1994)

. Accordingly, Mother has not shown the court err ed in finding that DCS proved termination was in the t wins’ best interests.

CONCLUSION

¶12 The superior court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to the t wins is affirmed.