NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

JACQUELINE C., Appellant,

 

v.

 

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC 

SECURITY, A.C., M.C., L.G., L.G.,

L.G., L.G., L.G., L.G., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 14-0048

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD509157

The Honorable David J. Palmer, Judge

REVERSED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate, Mesa

By Suzanne W. Sanchez

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Carol A. Salvati

Counsel for Appellee ADES
JACQUELINE C. v. ADES, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Jacqueline C. ("Mother") appeals from the superior court's 

order terminating her parental rights to her eight children. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution 

and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 8-235 (2014) and 12-

120.21(A) (2014).1 We accept a confession of error by the Arizona 

Department of Economic Security ("ADES") and reverse the order of 

termination.

¶2 After it was alleged that Mother’s husband had physically 

abused one of the children, Child Protective Services ("CPS"), a division of 

ADES, took all eight of her children into custody. The court found the 

children dependent as to Mother, and ADES eventually moved to sever

the parent-child relationship.

¶3 At the severance trial, a CPS specialist testified Mother 

participated, to some extent, in parent-aide services, psychological 

evaluation, supervised visitation with her children, individual counseling, 

urinalysis testing and two substance-abuse assessments. In the final 

parent-aide report, a CPS supervisor noted that Mother had maintained

stable housing and employment and that the "Parent Aide [] observed no 

parenting concerns during visits." As a result, the supervisor concluded 

that Mother "ha[d] achieved all Behavioral Changes related to safety to 

address the reasons the children were placed into custody . . . ." After 

hearing testimony from Mother and two CPS representatives, and after 

reviewing documents admitted in evidence, the superior court terminated 

Mother's parental rights based on time in care, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-

533(B)(8)(a), (b), and (c) (2014).

 1 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite a statute's 

current version.
JACQUELINE C. v. ADES, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Parental rights may be terminated on time-in-care grounds if 

the superior court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that CPS made 

a diligent effort to provide family-reunification services and "the parent 

has been unable to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in 

an out-of-home placement." A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c); see also Christina G. v. 

Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231, 234-35, ¶ 14, 256 P.3d 628, 631-32 

(App. 2011). ADES confesses error, acknowledging the record contains 

insufficient evidence to support the superior court's order. 

¶5 We will affirm an order of termination that is supported by 

reasonable evidence. Xavier R. v. Joseph R., 230 Ariz. 96, 100, ¶ 11, 280 P.3d 

640, 644 (App. 2012). We agree with ADES that the record contains 

insufficient evidence to support the order of termination. The CPS 

supervisor charged with assessing Mother's case determined that she had 

made all necessary behavioral changes "to address the reasons the 

children were placed into custody." Additionally, CPS failed to offer 

Mother certain recommended family-reunification services. Mother's 

psychological evaluator recommended couples counseling for Mother and 

Father and that Mother participate in her children's therapy. CPS did not 

offer these services to Mother. CPS also failed to conduct a best-interests 

assessment of the children, although such an assessment was 

recommended by the same CPS evaluator. When CPS "neglects to offer 

the very services that its consulting expert recommends," it fails to fulfill 

its duty to provide reunification services to a parent. Jordan C. v. Ariz. 

Dep't of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 96, ¶ 29, 219 P.3d 296, 306 (App. 2009).

¶6 For the reasons stated, we reverse the superior court's order.