NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

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 C ounsel for Appellee ADESJACQUELINE C. v. ADES, et al. Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision o f 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 child ren dependent as to Mother , and ADES eventually moved to sever the parent

- child relationsh ip.

¶3 At the severance trial , a CPS specialist testified Mother participated , to some extent, in p arent

- aide services , psychological evaluation
, supervised visitation with her children
, individual counseling
, urinalysis testing and two substance

- abuse assess ments. In the final parent

- aide report, a CPS supervisor noted that Mother had maintain ed 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] a chieved all Behavioral Changes related to safety to address the reasons the children were p lace d into custody . . . ." After hearing testimony from Mother and two CPS representatives , and after reviewing documents admitted in evidence, t he 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, 6 31

- 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 evid ence. 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 determin ed 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 f amily

- reunification services . Mo ther's psychological evaluator recommended couples counseling for Mother and Father and that Mother participate in her c hildren'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 recommend ed 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.