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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MARIANNA R., Appellant, 

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, J.R., J.F., Appellees. 

No. 1 CA-JV 21-0203 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD37726 

The Honorable Michael J. Herrod, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate, Mesa

By Suzanne W. Sanchez 

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jennifer R. Blum

Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

FILED 11-9-2021
MARIANNA R. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2 

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Marianna R. (“Mother”) appeals from the termination of her 

parental rights to her two children.1 Because the superior court’s order is 

supported by reasonable evidence, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding 

the juvenile court’s order.” Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 

547, 549, ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citation omitted). 

¶3 Mother is the biological parent of two children—a son, J.F., 

born September 2018, and a daughter, J.R., born December 2019. When J.F. 

was approximately ten months old, the Department of Child Safety 

(“DCS”) alleged he was dependent as to Mother due to neglect. Mother did 

not contest the dependency, and the superior court ordered J.F. be placed 

in out-of-home care with a case plan of reunification concurrent with 

severance and adoption. 

¶4 DCS provided Mother with services, including a 

psychological evaluation, parent aide, parenting classes, mental health 

treatment, substance abuse testing and treatment, visitation, case 

management, and transportation services. 

¶5 In December 2019, Mother gave birth to J.R., who remained in 

Mother’s custody. Because Mother had stable housing and had made 

“some behavioral changes,” the court granted DCS’s request to return J.F. 

to Mother’s custody.

¶6 One month later, however, Mother stopped attending 

counseling, lost contact with DCS, and she and the children became 

homeless. DCS petitioned to change J.F.’s custody and to establish J.R.’s 

dependency. The superior court ordered both children be placed with a 

maternal aunt.

¶7 DCS continued providing Mother reunification services, 

including a psychological consultation. Mother attended several initial 

intake appointments with different providers but failed to attend mental 

health counseling, substance abuse treatment, domestic violence therapy, 

or parent aide services, and she was discharged from these services for lack 

of participation. Mother stopped drug testing in June 2020 because, as she 

1 The children’s father is not a party to this appeal.
MARIANNA R. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3 

admits, “the results would [have been] positive,” and she had not visited

the children since December 2020. 

¶8 The superior court granted DCS’s motion to change the case 

plan to severance and adoption and held a termination hearing in May 

2021. At the hearing, Mother acknowledged that she was closed out of the

reunification services because she failed to participate. The court 

terminated Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of six months’ time-incare as to both children, and fifteen months’ time-in-care as to J.F. See Ariz. 

Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 8-533(B)(8)(b)-(c).

¶9 We have jurisdiction over Mother’s timely appeal under

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-

120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1), and Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile 

Court 103 and 104. 

DISCUSSION

¶10 To terminate parental rights, the superior court must find 

clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground in A.R.S. § 

8-533(B) and must find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination 

is in the child’s best interests. A.R.S. § 8–537(B); Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 

Ariz. 279, 281, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005); Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 

Ariz. 236, 239-40, ¶ 19 (App. 2012). We will affirm the superior court’s order 

terminating parental rights if it is supported by reasonable evidence. Jordan 

C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009). 

¶11 Termination under the six-month-time-in-care ground 

requires proof 

[t]he child who is under three years of age has been in an outof-home placement for a cumulative total period of six 

months or longer pursuant to court order and the parent has 

substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy the 

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

placement, including refusal to participate in reunification 

services offered by the department.

A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(8)(b). The superior court must also find DCS “made a diligent 

effort to provide appropriate reunification services.” A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(8). 

¶12 Mother does not challenge the superior court’s findings on

the fifteen-month ground for J.F. or that severance was in the children’s best 

interests. She has therefore conceded the accuracy of those findings on 
MARIANNA R. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4 

appeal. See Britz v. Kinsvater, 87 Ariz. 385, 388 (1960); see also Crystal E. v. 

Dep’t of Child Safety, 241 Ariz. 576, 577-78, ¶¶ 5-6 (App. 2017) (“[W]e adhere 

to the policy that it is generally not our role to sua sponte address issues not 

raised by the appellant.”); Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 

231, 234, ¶ 14 n.6 (App. 2011) (recognizing the failure to develop an 

argument on appeal usually results in abandonment and waiver of the 

issue).

I. Six-Month-Time-in-Care Ground 

¶13 Mother argues that she failed to complete reunification 

services because she did not have access to a phone, and therefore

insufficient evidence supported the finding that she substantially neglected 

or willfully refused to participate in services. See A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(8)(b). 

¶14 Her argument is unavailing. Mother testified that during an 

April 2021 meeting, she told her caseworker that she did not have a phone. 

She also testified she was working full-time and living with family during 

this period. As the superior court noted, Mother did not explain why she 

could not use a phone from work, family, or friends. Even if phone access 

affected Mother’s participation, at most, it was a factor for only the few 

months before the termination hearing and did not cause her lack of 

engagement during the year when both children were out of her care. 

Reasonable evidence supports the court’s finding that Mother substantially 

neglected or willfully refused to remedy the circumstances causing the 

children to be in out-of-home placement.

II. Reunification Services

¶15 Mother argues insufficient evidence supports the court’s 

finding that DCS made diligent efforts to provide reunification services. 

DCS contends Mother waived this argument by not objecting earlier, but 

because Mother raised the issue at the severance hearing, we decline to 

apply waiver. See Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174, 178, 

¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2014) (stating that a parent may preserve her failure-tomake-a-diligent-effort argument “in a variety of ways,” including “at a 

termination hearing”). 

¶16 To show diligent efforts, DCS must provide the parent “with 

the time and opportunity to participate in programs designed to help her

to become an effective parent.” Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 

Ariz. 231, 235, ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (citation omitted). DCS should also

“maintain consistent contact with the parent” and “make reasonable efforts 

to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult.” Donald W.
MARIANNA R. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5 

v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 9, 23, ¶ 50 (App. 2019) (citation omitted). 

But DCS “is not required to provide every conceivable service or to ensure 

that a parent participates in each service it offers.” Maricopa Cnty. Juv. 

Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353 (App. 1994) (citation omitted). 

¶17 Mother argues she could not participate in reunification

services because she did not have a phone for several months in 2021 and 

DCS did not help her get one. Mother conceded, however, that she did not 

tell her case manager that she lacked a phone until one month before the 

termination hearing. Mother admitted that she obtained a phone after her 

disclosure and appeared at the hearing telephonically. And although

Mother told her case manager once in 2020 that she could not participate in 

counseling because she did not have a phone, she then participated in a 

phone meeting with her case manager the next month. The record therefore 

does not support Mother’s contention that DCS should have done more to 

provide her with a phone.

¶18 Mother next contends DCS did not provide the Ph.D.-level 

therapist recommended by the consulting psychologist. The record 

contradicts this assertion, however. The case manager testified, and DCS 

records show, that DCS scheduled an intake with Southwest Behavioral 

Health, an agency that would have provided a Ph.D.-level counselor, but 

Mother did not attend. Mother did attend an intake appointment in 

January 2021 but did not complete any therapy sessions and was 

unsuccessfully discharged from the service. Reasonable evidence supports 

that DCS made a diligent effort to provide Mother with reunification 

services.

CONCLUSION

¶19 Because reasonable evidence supports the court’s order 

terminating Mother’s parental rights, we affirm.