Court Opinion

ID: 9411745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 18:04:00.662734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:11.284110
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 M.B., J.L., and X.L.

                              No. 1 CA-JV 23-0070
                                FILED 7-27-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JD39998
                  The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

David W. Bell, Attorney at Law, Higley
By David W. Bell
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Jennifer R. Blum
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
         IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.B., et al.
                       Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1            Anastashia M. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her
parental rights. We affirm.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             Mother has three children (born in 2014, 2020, and 2021) that
are the subject of this appeal. In 2020, the Department of Child Safety
(“DCS”) received a report that Mother’s second child had been born
substance exposed. DCS investigated. Mother admitted to regularly using
fentanyl throughout her pregnancy, using THC occasionally, and taking
methamphetamine just days before giving birth. DCS removed both
children from Mother’s care and filed a dependency petition. The juvenile
court found both children dependent and adopted a case plan of family
reunification.

¶3             DCS offered Mother a variety of reunification services,
including substance abuse aid. Mother was diagnosed with an opioid use
disorder and began regular drug testing. In the following months, she
repeatedly tested positive for fentanyl. After testing negative once in early
2021, she disengaged with services and was closed out of the program due
to a lack of engagement.

¶4            In late 2021, Mother gave birth to a third child, who was also
born substance exposed to fentanyl and other drugs. DCS removed the
child from Mother’s care, filed a supplemental dependency petition as to
the third child, and again offered substance abuse services. Mother’s
participation was limited.

¶5            Nearly one year later, at DCS’s request, the court changed the
case plan to severance and adoption and DCS moved to terminate Mother’s
parental rights to all three children. At the termination adjudication
hearing, Mother testified about her substance abuse history, her bond with
her children, and that her disengagement in substance abuse services was
due to technical malfunctions. Mother admitted that the longest period of

                                     2
         IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.B., et al.
                       Decision of the Court

sobriety she had maintained throughout the proceedings was roughly two
weeks.

¶6           The juvenile court found DCS had proven two grounds for
termination: (1) prolonged substance abuse and (2) length of time the
children had been in an out-of-home placement. The court also found that
termination was in the children’s best interests and, consequently,
terminated Mother’s parental rights.

¶7             Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article
6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1),
12-2101(A)(1), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 601(a).

                                DISCUSSION

¶8            Mother does not challenge either statutory ground justifying
termination, only whether the termination was in the children’s best
interests. Whether termination was in the children’s best interests is a
question of fact. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 13
(App. 2002). We will affirm a juvenile court’s decision “if reasonable
evidence and inferences support [it].” See Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245
Ariz. 146, 151, ¶ 18 (2018).

¶9             In conducting the best interests inquiry, the juvenile court
must find that the “child[ren] would [either] benefit from a severance or be
harmed by the continuation of the relationship.” Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action
No. JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5 (1990). In doing so, the court must evaluate the
totality of the circumstances. Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz.
96, 99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

¶10            Mother contends that termination was not in the children’s
best interests because “[she] and the children have a significant bond.”
Record evidence confirms that bond. But “[t]he existence . . . of a bonded
relationship between a biological parent and a child, although a factor to
consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” Dominique M., 240
Ariz. at 98, ¶ 12.

¶11          Despite the bond between Mother and the children, the
juvenile court found that: (1) the children needed permanency, (2) each
child had a “stable bond with their respective placements,” (3) each child
was adoptable, (4) the children would benefit from termination, and (5) by
terminating Mother’s rights, the children would avoid “a potentially
harmful relationship with [Mother] who ha[s] not demonstrated an ability

                                       3
       IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.B., et al.
                     Decision of the Court

to address [her] substance abuse.” Reasonable evidence supports the
court’s findings. On this record, Mother has shown no error.

                            CONCLUSION

¶12         We affirm.

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

                                      4