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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.V. and L.V.

No. 1 CA-JV 22-0198

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD41158

The Honorable Michael D. Gordon, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jennifer R. Blum

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 2-7-2023
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.V., et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Peter B. Swann1 delivered the decision of the court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

S W A N N, Judge:

¶1 Matthew V. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

severing his parental rights to E.V. and L.V. For the following reasons, we 

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father is the biological father of E.V. and L.V., and their 

biological mother is deceased. In June 2021, the Department of Child Safety 

(“DCS”) received a report alleging that Father was homeless, refusing help 

from services, and possibly abusing methamphetamine. The next month, 

DCS and law enforcement located Father and the children at a motel. Upon 

arrival, they heard the children begging Father to wake up. Law 

enforcement entered the room and found Father unconscious, appearing to 

be under the influence, with a pipe containing an unknown substance next 

to him. DCS took temporary custody of the children and filed a 

dependency petition.

¶3 In August 2021, Father appeared in court and contested the

dependency. After Father did not appear for the next two hearings, the 

juvenile court proceeded in his absence and adjudicated E.V. and L.V. to be 

dependent. DCS referred Father for case management services, substanceabuse treatment and testing, parent-aide services, and supervised 

parenting time. Father’s referral for substance-abuse treatment closed out 

twice due to Father’s lack of engagement. Father submitted a drug test only 

1 Judge Peter B. Swann was a sitting member of this court when the 

matter was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective 

November 28, 2022. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6, 

Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-145, the 

Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court has designated Judge Swann as 

a judge pro tempore in the Court of Appeals for the purpose of participating 

in the resolution of cases assigned to this panel during his term in office and 

for the duration of Administrative Order 2022-162.
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.V., et al.

Decision of the Court

3

seven times throughout the entire case, even though DCS required him to 

test two times per week over a period of thirteen months. He had last tested 

in January 2022. The drug tests he did submit were positive for THC.

¶4 Father’s referrals for supervised visits closed out and 

reopened several times after he failed to engage in consistent supervised 

visits. Father has not visited with the children since January 2022. Father 

also failed to engage with other services DCS offered.

¶5 DCS filed a motion for termination in May 2022, on the 

grounds of chronic substance abuse and nine months in an out-of-home 

placement. Father failed to appear without good cause at the July 2022 

termination hearing. The DCS case manager testified about Father’s lack of 

engagement with the services provided. After the hearing, the juvenile 

court terminated Father’s parental rights on the grounds alleged.

¶6 Father appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶7 “Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as 

they see fit, but that right is not without limitation.” Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep’t 

of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79, ¶ 14 (App. 2001). To terminate a parent’s 

rights, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence at least 

one of the grounds in A.R.S. § 8-533(B) and must find by a preponderance 

of the evidence that severance is in the child’s best interests. Kent K. v. Bobby 

M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288, ¶ 42 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 

Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 12 (2000).

¶8 The juvenile court is in the best position to weigh the 

evidence, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to 

supporting the court’s decision. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 

Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009). We do not reweigh the evidence. Id. We will 

not disturb a juvenile court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion or 

unless the court’s findings of fact have no reasonable evidence to support 

them. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 (App. 

2004).

¶9 The superior court terminated Father’s parental rights under 

both A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), chronic substance abuse, and § (8)(a), nine months 

in an out-of-home placement. Both statutory grounds are “proxies for 

parental unfitness because they demonstrate a parent’s inability ‘to 

properly parent his/her child.’” Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 

146, 150, ¶ 10 (2018) (citation omitted). Father contends that the record 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.V., et al.

Decision of the Court

4

contains insufficient evidence to support the parental unfitness necessary 

for termination of his parental rights under § 8-533(B)(3) and (8)(a). We 

disagree. Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s finding that 

termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the children. 

We therefore do not address whether severance was in the children’s best 

interests. See Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 13.

I. REASONABLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE COURT’S 

DETERMINATION THAT SEVERANCE WAS WARRANTED 

BASED ON FATHER’S CHRONIC SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

¶10 The termination ground under § 8-533(B)(3) requires “[t]hat 

the parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of . . . a 

history of chronic abuse of dangerous drugs, controlled substances or 

alcohol and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the condition will 

continue for a prolonged indeterminate period.” “[T]his section does not 

require that the parent be found unable to discharge any parental 

responsibilities but rather that the parent be unable to discharge the 

parental responsibilities.” Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 

373, 378, ¶ 19 (App. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Parental responsibilities” refers to the duties or obligations a parent has to 

his or her child. Id. at ¶ 20. The term does not include an exclusive set of 

factors but instead establishes a standard that allows trial judges flexibility 

to consider the unique circumstances of each case. Id.

¶11 Father contends that the record lacks sufficient evidence of his 

parental unfitness for being “unable to discharge parental responsibilities.” 

The juvenile court found that “Father is unable to discharge his parental 

responsibilities because of a history of chronic substance abuse, of 

controlled substances and/or alcohol.” The court stated, “[t]here are 

reasonable grounds to believe that it will continue for a prolonged, 

indeterminate period of time.” The court also found Father’s failure to 

submit drug tests throughout the case indicated that Father continued to 

use drugs. The record supports the court’s findings.

¶12 Father has a history of chronic substance abuse, with a 2006 

conviction for possession of methamphetamine. DCS referred Father to the 

service provider, Terros, for substance-abuse treatment. During Father’s 

intake, he did not disclose his past methamphetamine use to the case 

manager. He did report that he first used alcohol at the age of twenty-one 

and marijuana at the age of sixteen. The staff at Terros diagnosed Father 

with alcohol use disorder and cannabis use disorder.
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.V., et al.

Decision of the Court

5

¶13 Father’s failure to engage in substance-abuse testing or 

treatment suggests his chronic substance abuse will continue. See id. at 379, 

¶ 29 (“Father’s failure to remedy his drug abuse; despite knowing the loss 

of his children was imminent, is evidence he has not overcome his 

dependence on drugs and alcohol.”). The first two referrals to Terros closed 

out due to Father’s lack of engagement; DCS submitted a third request, 

which Terros denied. The case proceedings continued for about one year; 

during that time DCS required Father to test twice per week. He only tested 

seven times throughout the entire case, which means he missed at least 

seventy tests. The DCS case manager testified that Father displayed erratic 

behaviors consistent with substance abuse, and as of July 2022, he had not 

tested since January 26, 2022.

¶14 Father’s chronic substance abuse threatens the children’s 

safety. See id. at 378, ¶ 22 (attributing parent’s failure to protect children 

from harm to his chronic substance abuse). When DCS initially located 

Father, they found him passed out, appearing to be under the influence, 

with drug paraphernalia next to him within reach of the children. The 

report to DCS stated that Father has left the children in the care of a 

homeless person and others while he partied, and the children’s placement 

expressed concern that as a result, the children were willing to get into cars 

with strangers. DCS also received a report that Father and the children had 

been at known drug houses. The DCS case manager testified that Father’s 

substance abuse presented a danger to his children due to his “erratic

behaviors, . . . neglect as well as leaving paraphernalia within reach of 

them.”

¶15 Father’s chronic substance abuse also prevents him from the 

basic parental responsibility of providing for his children. In June 2021, 

Father and the children lived in a hotel, with Father’s sole source of income 

coming from a Go Fund Me account. When DCS located the children, they 

appeared dirty, with scars on their bodies. Father had not enrolled the 

children in school. As of the termination hearing, Father still did not have 

a residence or a job to provide stability for the children.

¶16 Lastly, Father failed to maintain consistent visits with his 

children. Father had a parent aide, but after Father threatened the parent 

aide, this service closed out. DCS referred Father to other providers for 

supervised visits, but Father was inconsistent and did not put any effort 

into scheduling visits. Father has not had contact with the children since 

January 2022, even though his last referral for supervised visits remained 

open. Given Father’s failure to engage in substance-abuse treatment or 

testing, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the court’s 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.V., et al.

Decision of the Court

6

finding that Father is unable to discharge his parental responsibilities 

because of his history of chronic substance abuse.

II. REASONABLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE COURT’S 

DETERMINATION THAT SEVERANCE WAS WARRANTED 

BASED ON THE CHILDREN’S TIME IN CARE.

¶17 The juvenile court only needs to find one statutory ground for 

severance. Crystal E. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 241 Ariz. 576, 577, ¶ 5 (App. 

2017). Here, Father’s chronic substance abuse is a predicate to the nine 

months the children have spent in an out-of-home placement. The 

severance ground under § 8-533(B)(8)(a) requires that the child live in an 

out-of-home placement for a total period of nine months or longer and that 

“the parent has substantially neglected or willfully refused to remedy the 

circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement” 

despite DCS’s “diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification 

services.”

¶18 Father contends that the record lacks sufficient evidence of his 

parental unfitness for failing to “remedy the circumstances.” The juvenile 

court found that “Father has substantially neglected or willfully refused to 

remedy the circumstances that caused the children to be in an out-of-home 

placement.” The court stated Father was aware of the services offered to 

him and did not engage in them, which demonstrates some substantial 

neglect. The record supports the court’s findings.

¶19 DCS took custody of the children in July 2021, and the 

children were still under care at the time of the severance hearing in July 

2022, a year-long period. As described in Section I, Father failed to engage 

in consistent substance-abuse testing, treatment, or visits with the children. 

Father’s failure to treat his chronic substance abuse has resulted in his 

children continuing to stay in an out-of-home placement for over nine 

months. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient for the juvenile court to 

conclude that Father has refused to remedy the circumstances that caused 

the children to be in an out-of-home placement.
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.V., et al.

Decision of the Court

7

CONCLUSION

¶20 Reasonable evidence supports the juvenile court’s order 

severing Father’s parental rights to E.V. and L.V. We therefore affirm.