Court Opinion

ID: 9396636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 14:03:05.133346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:18.590451
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 N.S.

                              No. 1 CA-JV 22-0282
                                FILED 5-23-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JD37277
                 The Honorable Michael J. Herrod, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate’s Office, Mesa
By Suzanne W. Sanchez
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Bailey Leo
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.

C R U Z, Judge:
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.S.
                        Decision of the Court

¶1            P.H. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s termination of
her parental rights to her child, N.S.1 For the following reasons, we affirm.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2          N.S. was born in April 2021 and was exposed to
methamphetamine in utero. DCS removed him from Mother’s care at the
time of his birth.        Mother disclosed that she started using
methamphetamine when she was a teenager and had used the drug two
days before N.S.’s birth. The superior court adjudicated N.S. dependent
and approved a case plan of family reunification.

¶3           DCS offered Mother services, including substance abuse
testing, substance abuse treatment, counseling, visitation services,
parenting education through the Nurturing Parenting Program (“NPP”),
housing resources, and transportation.

¶4            Mother’s participation in services was inconsistent. She
worked with the NPP provider for several months but was closed out for
lack of engagement in January 2022. Mother was inconsistent with
visitation and was closed out of case aide services in February 2022 due to
lack of participation and excessive cancellations. In March 2022, DCS
provided Mother with a new case aide. In June and July 2022, Mother’s
inconsistency led to six cancelled visits with N.S.

¶5            From April 2021 until the termination hearing in mid-
November 2022, Mother called in to PSI for drug testing only sporadically
and submitted to drug testing on just two occasions. In July 2021, Mother
tested positive for methamphetamine. On June 14, 2022, she tested positive
for alcohol, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Mother missed two
required tests later that month and, although required to do so, did not call
in to PSI thereafter. At her July 2021 Terros intake appointment, Mother
disclosed she used methamphetamine about five days per week. And at
the termination adjudication hearing, Mother testified that she had used
methamphetamine from June 2022 to mid-October 2022.

¶6           DCS referred Mother to Terros for substance abuse treatment
and mental health services in July 2021, October 2021, February 2022, and
July 2022. Mother did not engage, and those referrals were closed
unsuccessfully. DCS again referred Mother to Terros in August 2022.

1      The superior court also terminated the parental rights of N.S.’s
father. He is not a party to this appeal.

                                     2
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.S.
                        Decision of the Court

Mother completed an intake and began attending intensive outpatient
group therapy sessions in October 2022. Mother attended ten out of
fourteen sessions but had not completed intensive outpatient therapy at the
time of the termination hearing.

¶7             In June 2022, DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental
rights to N.S. on grounds of six-, nine-, and fifteen-months’ time in care and
substance abuse. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 8-533(B)(3), (8). At the
time of the termination hearing, Mother was homeless although DCS had
referred her for housing assistance. After the contested hearing, the
superior court terminated Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of
Mother’s chronic substance abuse and six-, nine- and fifteen-months’ time
in care. The court found that termination was in N.S.’s best interests, a
finding Mother does not contest on appeal. Mother timely appealed, and
we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and
-2101(A)(1).

                                DISCUSSION

¶8           Mother raises one issue on appeal: whether DCS failed to
provide her with appropriate reunification services.

¶9             “We will not disturb the juvenile court’s order severing
parental rights unless its factual findings are clearly erroneous, that is,
unless there is no reasonable evidence to support them.” Audra T. v. Ariz.
Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 2 (App. 1998). We view the evidence
in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s ruling.
Lashonda M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 210 Ariz. 77, 82, ¶ 13 (App. 2005). We
do not reweigh the evidence, because the superior court “is in the best
position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of
witnesses, and make appropriate findings.” Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). The superior court may terminate
a parent-child relationship if DCS proves by clear and convincing evidence
at least one statutory ground set forth in A.R.S. § 8-533(B). Michael J. v. Ariz.
Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 12 (2000). The court must also find
by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the child’s best
interests. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22 (2005).

¶10           The superior court may only terminate a parent-child
relationship under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8) if DCS “has made a diligent effort to
provide appropriate reunification services.” A parent also has a right to
reasonable reunification services when DCS seeks to terminate parental
rights pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3). Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

                                       3
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.S.
                        Decision of the Court

Sec., 193 Ariz. 185, 191-92, ¶¶ 29-34 (App. 1999); see also A.R.S. § 8-846(A)
(requiring DCS to make reasonable efforts to provide services to a child
who has been removed from home and the child’s parent, except in certain
circumstances). 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). DCS fulfills
its statutory mandate to provide appropriate reunification services
diligently when it provides a parent “with the time and opportunity to
participate in programs designed to help [the parent] become an effective
parent.” Id. DCS’s reasonable efforts requirement is consistent with and
encompasses the Americans with Disabilities Act’s reasonable
accommodation requirement. Jessica P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 251 Ariz. 34,
39, ¶ 15 (App. 2021).

¶11           Citing Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174,
178-79, ¶¶ 16, 18 (App. 2014), DCS argues Mother waived any inadequate
reunification services argument because she did not raise her concerns in
the superior court. However, the superior court found that Mother had
timely challenged the adequacy of services in the dependency and
termination proceedings. Accordingly, we will address the merits of
Mother’s claim that DCS did not make diligent efforts to provide her with
appropriate reunification services.

¶12          Mother argues DCS failed to appropriately accommodate her
diagnosed mental illness—schizophrenia. Specifically, she contends DCS
should have provided her with a ride service rather than bus passes for her
appointments with service providers and failed to help her navigate the
housing resource it referred her to, Home Inc.

¶13           Here, DCS provided Mother with multiple referrals for
substance abuse testing services, parent aide and case aide services, and
referred her to Terros for substance abuse treatment and mental health
services numerous times over the course of the dependency. Mother was
inconsistent with those services and unable to remain drug-free for the
majority of the dependency. In addition, DCS referred Mother to Home
Inc. for housing resources and provided her with bus passes to get to her
appointments. The record also shows Mother had a ride service through
AHCCCS, which she utilized to attend service appointments on multiple
occasions. And Mother testified that she and her long-term partner (N.S.’s
father) had been approved for “rapid rehousing” through Home Inc. and
would be signing the required paperwork the day after the hearing. Mother
cites to nothing in the record indicating she needed additional help
navigating housing resources. Reasonable evidence supports the superior

                                     4
           IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.S.
                       Decision of the Court

court’s finding that DCS made diligent efforts to provide Mother with
appropriate reunification services.

                           CONCLUSION

¶14          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s
order terminating Mother’s parental rights to N.S.

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

                                     5