Court Opinion

ID: 9556543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 17:05:13.185726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:39.772905
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                              No. 1 CA-JV 23-0010
                                FILED 8-17-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                        No. S8015JD202100044
         The Honorable Aaron Michael Demke, Judge Pro Tempore

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Michael & Casey, Your AZ Lawyer, Phoenix
By Robert I. Casey
Counsel for Appellant Mother

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Autumn Spritzer
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:
             IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO T.C.
                         Decision of the Court

¶1            Annalisa H. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her
parental rights to T.C., arguing the superior court failed to make necessary
findings of fact and that the Department of Child Safety (DCS) did not
provide appropriate reunification services. Because Mother has shown no
error, the order is affirmed.

                  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            Mother has a long history of using illegal substances,
including methamphetamine since she was 14 years old. She admitted she
cannot get through the week without using drugs. In March 2020, Mother
gave birth to her first methamphetamine-exposed child, who she gave up
for adoption.

¶3            Mother admitted using methamphetamine for most of her
pregnancy with T.C. When born in September 2021, T.C. tested positive for
methamphetamine. Although Mother resides in Arizona, T.C. was born in
St. George, Utah, because it was the closest hospital to Mother’s home.1 In
October 2021, DCS removed T.C. from Mother’s care and filed a petition
alleging the child was dependent because of Mother’s history of substance
abuse, domestic violence and mental illness.2 In January 2022, the court
found T.C. dependent because, among other reasons, Mother’s ongoing
substance abuse posed a risk to T.C. The court adopted a family
reunification case plan.

¶4            DCS offered Mother numerous reunification services,
including substance abuse assessment, testing, education and treatment,
behavioral-health assessment and treatment, and transportation. DCS also
repeatedly encouraged Mother to participate in inpatient drug treatment.
Mother made minimal efforts to work on her drug addiction during the first
nine months of the dependency. Mother refused to consider inpatient
treatment and generally did not follow treatment recommendations.
During this time, Mother admitted she was still using methamphetamine
and continued to test positive for methamphetamine each time she tested.

1 Although involved initially, Utah deferred proceedings as to Mother and

T.C. to Arizona, and the Arizona superior court concluded Arizona is the
appropriate forum, a ruling not challenged on appeal.

2 T.C.’s father is not a party to this appeal.

                                        2
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO T.C.
                        Decision of the Court

¶5            Given Mother’s lack of participation and progress, in May
2022, the court granted DCS’ motion to change the case plan to severance
and adoption. In June 2022, DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental
rights alleging chronic substance abuse and six-months time-in-care. See
Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 8-533(B)(3) & (8)(b) (2023).3 After DCS filed its
motion, Mother enrolled in a substance abuse class. However, Mother
continued to test positive for methamphetamine and declined inpatient
care, even after becoming pregnant with her third child.

¶6            In November 2022, the court held a termination adjudication.
The DCS caseworker testified about Mother’s substance abuse, DCS’
reunification services, Mother’s lack of progress towards sobriety and
Mother repeatedly testing positive for methamphetamine. The caseworker
testified about T.C.’s current placement and why termination of Mother’s
parental rights was in T.C.’s best interests, including that T.C. would be at
risk of severe neglect or worse if returned to Mother’s care. DCS offered
various exhibits supporting the caseworker’s testimony, which the court
received without objection. Mother also testified, explaining she loves T.C.
and is trying to work on her sobriety but it is hard.

¶7            At the close of the evidence, the court granted DCS’ petition
to terminate on both the substance abuse and time-in-care grounds. For the
substance abuse ground, the court found Mother “has not maintained any
period of sobriety” and had tested positive for methamphetamine
throughout this case. The court also found Mother made “very few efforts”
to maintain her sobriety, that Mother’s substance abuse is an “ongoing
issue,” and that ongoing use is “likely.” For the time-in-care ground, the
court found T.C. has been in DCS’ care for more than six months, DCS made
diligent efforts to provide appropriate reunification services and Mother
has “substantially neglected and/or willfully refused to remedy the
circumstances that caused [her] child to be in an out-of-home placement.”
Finally, the court found termination was in T.C.’s best interests “by a
preponderance of the evidence or even greater.” The court later issued an
order, making corresponding findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Mother timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section
9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A) and 12-
2101(A), and Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 601–03.

3 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

                                      3
             IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO T.C.
                         Decision of the Court

                                 DISCUSSION

¶8             As applicable here, to terminate parental rights, a court must
find by clear and convincing evidence that at least one statutory ground
articulated 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 evidence and assess witness credibility,”
this court will accept the superior court’s factual findings as long as they
are supported by reasonable evidence and will affirm its legal conclusions
unless clearly erroneous. Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, CV-22-0158-PR,
2023 WL 5024023, at *5 ¶¶ 29–31 (Ariz. Aug. 8, 2023) (citations omitted).
This court views the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the
superior court’s findings. See Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz.
205, 207 ¶ 2 (App. 2008).

I.     The Superior Court Made Sufficient Findings of Fact.

¶9            Mother claims the superior court’s findings failed to “include
all the facts necessary to resolve the disputed issues.” Mother
acknowledges the court found she had a history of substance abuse and
there was reason to believe the substance abuse would continue for a
prolonged and indeterminate period of time. Mother also acknowledges the
court found T.C. had been in DCS’ care for six months, DCS had made
diligent reunification efforts and Mother had “substantially neglected or
willfully refused to remedy the circumstances” that led to T.C. being
removed from her care. Nevertheless, Mother argues the court’s ruling
provided “very little support for its termination” and “failed to provide
sufficient specificity.” Although DCS urges waiver, Mother’s argument
fails on the merits.

¶10             By rule, the court had to “make specific findings of fact in
support of the termination.” Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 353(h)(2)(A). The order must
contain “at least one sufficiently specific finding to support each of the
court’s conclusions of law.” Logan B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 532,
537 ¶ 15 (App. 2018). While the “ultimate facts” necessary to resolve the
disputed issues are to be included, the court is not required to list every fact
it relied on in making its findings. Id.; see also Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Sec., 214 Ariz. 445, 451–52 ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (requiring courts to state every
fact it relied on imposes an undue burden). In this case, the superior court’s
findings are not verbose, but Mother has shown no error.

                                         4
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO T.C.
                        Decision of the Court

¶11           The substance abuse ground required DCS to prove Mother
“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.” A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3). The court found
Mother had a long history of abusing methamphetamine, T.C. was born
exposed to methamphetamine and Mother previously had a child who was
methamphetamine exposed. The court also found DCS made reasonable
efforts to provide Mother with rehabilitative services (listing seventeen
services offered to Mother in its order) but Mother “has only minimally
participated in these services and has not made any behavioral changes
sufficient to enable her to safely parent this child.” The trial evidence
supports the court’s written findings. Because the termination order
contained sufficient findings of the ultimate facts necessary for the
substance abuse ground, Mother has not shown the court erred.

¶12           The time-in-care ground required DCS to prove T.C. was
under three years old and had been cared for in an out-of-home placement
for six months or longer pursuant to a court order (showings that are not
disputed), that DCS had made a diligent effort to provide appropriate
reunification services and that Mother “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). In its
termination order, the court found T.C. was under three years old, was in
an out-of-home placement for more than six months pursuant to court
order and that despite DCS’ diligent efforts to provide reunification
services (which the court listed), Mother had substantially neglected or
willfully refused to remedy the circumstances by not participating in DCS’
reunification services. The court found that Mother “only minimally
engaged in the services provided to remedy the circumstances and [] fails
to recognize the need to make behavioral changes to safely parent the
child.” The trial evidence supports the court’s written findings of these
ultimate facts. Again, Mother has shown no error.

II.    Mother Has Not Shown the Superior Court Erred in Finding DCS
       Provided Appropriate Reunification Services.

¶13           Mother argues DCS “did not provide appropriate
reunification services” to justify the termination of her parental rights.
Mother’s sole argument is it was difficult for her to participate in the drug
testing service because the closest facility (in St. George, Utah) was about
an hour away from where she lived. Mother claims that participating in this

                                      5
             IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO T.C.
                         Decision of the Court

service required her to “move mountains to engage in it” and thus was “not
a service that [had] a reasonable prospect of success.”

¶14            Mother is correct that the closest testing facility was about an
hour from where she lives. However, DCS offered Mother transportation to
and from the testing facility. Mother rarely used DCS’ transportation, and
when she did test, she routinely tested positive for methamphetamine. On
this record, Mother has not shown the superior court abused its discretion
in finding DCS “made diligent effort[s] to provide appropriate reunification
services.” See also Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353
(App. 1994) (explaining parent’s refusal to participate in agency’s services
does not foreclose termination of her parental rights).

¶15            Moreover, Mother failed to raise the adequacy of services
with the superior court. Mother’s only testimony during the hearing about
the drug testing service was that she had difficulty enrolling, not that it was
too far away. Accordingly, by failing to properly challenge the adequacy of
services in superior court, Mother waived the right to press such an
argument for the first time on appeal. See Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Sec., 234 Ariz. 174, 179 ¶ 18 (App. 2014); see also Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of
Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 345, 349–50 ¶ 19 (App. 2013) (explaining parent waives
challenge to the adequacy of reunification services when not argued during
hearing). Mother has shown no error in addressing the adequacy of
services.

                                CONCLUSION

¶16           The termination order is affirmed.

                            AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                            FILED: AA

                                          6