Court Opinion

ID: 9939997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 16:02:23.233874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:10.157234
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 J.W.

                              No. 1 CA-JV 23-0088
                               FILED 02-13-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JD533566
                 The Honorable Joshua D. Rogers, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Denise L. Carroll Esq., Scottsdale
By Denise Lynn Carroll
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Michelle R. Nimmo
Counsel for Appellee DCS

The Huff Law Firm PLLC, Tucson
By Daniel R. Huff, Laura J. Huff
Counsel for Appellee DCS
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.W.
                        Decision of the Court

Alexander Legal LLC, Chandler
By Amy Alexander
Counsel for Appellee Child

Curry Law Office PLC, Chandler
By Andrea Curry
Counsel for Appellee Child

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1             Skye F. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental
rights as to J.W. (“Child”). Mother argues the Department of Child Safety
(“DCS”) did not accommodate her by providing more reunification services
and sufficient time and opportunity to participate in them. We conclude
DCS made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services,
and Mother was not entitled to additional time to utilize those services. We,
therefore, affirm termination.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2           Mother gave birth to Child on February 8, 2018. Mother
admitted that she abused substances during pregnancy, including
marijuana, methamphetamine, methadone, and pills from her
grandmother’s medicine cabinet. Her substance abuse continued after
Child was born. Mother tested positive for fentanyl in March 2020 and was
hospitalized in August 2020 due to an overdose on her prescription of
benzodiazepines.

¶3            Child has special medical needs, requiring appointments with
professionals to address developmental delays and issues with his eyes and
gait. Mother did not follow up on Child’s appointments and constantly
needed to be reminded of them. She also needed to be told to take Child to
the emergency room when he was in “intense pain.” DCS concluded that
Mother did not understand the extent of Child’s disabilities, was unable to

                                     2
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.W.
                        Decision of the Court

provide for him, and did not have the parenting capacity to take him to the
doctor or understand his needs.

¶4           In August 2020, DCS filed a petition alleging Child was
dependent as to Mother. DCS then established an in-home safety plan,
which prohibited Mother from having unsupervised contact with Child.
Mother’s grandparents supervised the safety plan. Within five days,
Mother violated the plan by driving Child, unsupervised, to her behavioral
clinic, where they were involved in a minor car accident. Mother was
observed shaking and speaking inappropriately to Child. Consequently,
DCS removed Child from Mother’s care. Shortly thereafter, the juvenile
court found Child dependent.

¶5            DCS scheduled a psychological evaluation for Mother. The
doctor diagnosed Mother with unspecified trauma and stressor-related
disorder, unspecified opioid-related disorder, and borderline intellectual
functioning. He found a large discrepancy between Mother’s self-report
and her records, believed her ability to parent safely was poor, and
expressed concern about her history of substance abuse and denial of such
abuse. The doctor stated that, “while Mother is likely intellectually capable
of learning the necessary parenting skills, she would likely require an
additional 3 to 6 months of active involvement in services than is typically
expected[.]”

¶6            In terms of reunification services provided, in September
2020, DCS referred Mother to a parent aide. By September 2021, DCS
terminated parent-aide services because Mother was unsuccessful in
addressing issues with impulse control, threat recognition, and resiliency.
DCS also referred Mother to a Nurturing Parent Program (“NPP”), but
Mother failed to participate, so the service ended. After later re-joining the
NPP, Mother missed at least ten of seventeen scheduled sessions, and the
provider determined Mother would not further benefit from the NPP due
to her lack of participation. According to the NPP provider, Mother “was
given a closing ceremony certificate per direction from [the practitioner’s]
boss, but [the practitioner] was informed later that it wasn’t correct to give
[Mother] a closing certificate as she did not complete enough of the lesson
material and courses with [her] engaged in the program to complete
successfully.”

¶7           DCS referred Mother for random drug testing. Mother
missed over half of the tests between July and December 2020, did not test
between April and June 6, 2021, and was suspended from testing in July
2021. After Mother began participating in testing again in September 2021,

                                      3
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.W.
                        Decision of the Court

she missed multiple tests. Mother stopped participating again in October
2021. Mother again participated between May and August 2022, but still
missed three scheduled tests during that time.

¶8            DCS provided Mother with outpatient substance abuse
treatment services (“SOP”). DCS’s initial attempt to provide those services
was unsuccessful because Mother did not respond to three attempts to
arrange a substance abuse assessment. Mother then enrolled in an SOP
program in February 2022, but by March she had “attended 1 out of 8
sessions and [was] gaining minimal insight regarding the dynamics of
mental health and substance use.” Mother missed eight SOP sessions in
April 2022, four in May 2022, two in June 2022, and four in July 2022. When
Mother did attend, she sometimes was disoriented and struggled to stay
awake, leading the provider to conclude she might be under the influence
of illegal drugs or prescribed medication. Mother denied having a
substance abuse issue.

¶9             Mother graduated from the SOP program in November 2022.
Normally a twelve-week course, Mother took over six months to graduate
because she would not accept responsibility for her substance-abuse issues
and failed to regularly attend sessions. Mother told a clinician at the SOP
provider that she was participating in required drug tests and was therefore
sober. But the clinician testified that he later learned that statement was
false—Mother was not undergoing drug tests at the time. Had he known
the truth, it would have impacted Mother’s completion of the SOP program.
Mother also needed to complete a recovery maintenance program to finish
the SOP program but failed to do so.

¶10           Lastly, Mother’s DCS case manager suggested she seek help
from the Family Involvement Center to increase compliance with DCS’s
requests for behavioral changes. Mother did not do so.

¶11            In April 2023, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental
rights. The court concluded DCS made diligent efforts to provide Mother
with appropriate reunification services, Mother had been unable to remedy
the circumstances causing Child’s out-of-home placement, and termination
was in Child’s best interests because it would give him needed permanence
and stability.

¶12          Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. §
8-235(A).

                                     4
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.W.
                        Decision of the Court

                               DISCUSSION

¶13            Mother argues DCS did not accommodate her disability in
providing appropriate reunification services or sufficient time and
opportunity to participate in such services. She asks for “additional time”
to participate in reunification services and that the “requirements for
completion be explained to her in a way that she can understand.” Mother
does not challenge the juvenile court’s finding that DCS established a
statutory ground for termination or that termination would be in Child’s
best interests. Mother only challenges the juvenile court’s finding that DCS
made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services.

¶14            We will “affirm a termination order unless the juvenile court
abuses its discretion or the court’s findings are not supported by reasonable
evidence.” Timothy B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 252 Ariz. 470, 474 ¶ 14 (2022).
We will accept the juvenile court’s factual findings if supported by
reasonable evidence and inferences. Brionna J. v. Dept’t of Child Safety, 255
Ariz. 471, ___ ¶ 30 (2023). We will not disturb the juvenile court’s
conclusions for insufficient evidence unless no one could reasonably find
the evidence to be sufficient. Id. at ___ ¶ 31.

¶15            “Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as
they see fit, but that right is not without limitation.” Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep’t
of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79 ¶ 14 (App. 2001). A juvenile court may
terminate parental rights if DCS “has made a diligent effort to provide
appropriate reunification services,” the “child has been in an out-of-home
placement for a cumulative total period of fifteen months or longer . . . the
parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to
be in an out-of-home placement and there is a substantial likelihood that
the parent will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental
care and control in the near future.” A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c).

¶16           To fulfill its reunification obligations, DCS is required to
provide a parent with “the time and opportunity to participate in programs
designed to help her become an effective parent.” Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action
No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 353 (App. 1994). DCS is not required, however,
to provide “every conceivable service,” nor is it “required to provide
services that are futile” or have no “reasonable prospect of success.”
Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231, 235 ¶ 15 (App. 2011)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

¶17            The record does not support the notion that Mother’s
intellectual challenges entitle her to more time than she already received to

                                      5
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.W.
                        Decision of the Court

utilize reunification services. The doctor who conducted Mother’s
psychological evaluation testified at the termination hearing that Mother’s
intelligence is low, and he believed she needed approximately three to six
additional months of involvement in services than was typically required.

¶18           Mother received significantly more than three to six
additional months to remedy the circumstances resulting in Child’s out-of-
home placement. DCS provided nearly thirty months of services (August
2020 through February 2023). The legislature made the policy choice that
termination should occur if a child is in out-of-home placement for more
than fifteen months (and certain other conditions are present). See A.R.S. §
8-533(B)(8)(c). Even assuming the juvenile court can extend that fifteen-
month period in certain cases when all conditions for termination are
otherwise met, Mother has not established that it was required to do so
here, when termination did not occur until thirty months after DCS filed
the dependency petition.

¶19           The record supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that DCS
provided Mother with adequate reunification services prior to termination.
From August 2020 to January 2023, DCS provided Mother with parent-aide
services, parenting services, supervised visitation, drug testing, substance-
abuse assessment and treatment, a psychological evaluation, and
counseling. Mother was inconsistent in utilizing and attending those
services.

¶20          Mother claims she had “no way of knowing what she was
doing was wrong nor the opportunity to get the services that may have . . .
resolved [her] issues.” To the contrary, Mother had various ways to keep
apprised of her status during the proceedings. The juvenile court notified
Mother when it changed her case plan to termination and adoption based
on the lack of progress during the dependency proceedings. Mother
routinely received court reports from DCS during the proceedings, each
explaining her lack of compliance and improvement. As the juvenile court
noted, Mother also attended “periodic Report and Review Hearings and
Pre-Trial Conferences over the course of [the] proceedings,” which allowed
her to “appear, discuss any progress, issues, or obstacle to progress, and
necessary changes to the case plan or required services.”

¶21           Mother contends DCS deceived her because two providers
gave her certificates of completion for services. Mother argues that
receiving those certificates led her “to believe that she would . . . ultimately
be reunified [with Child].” But the juvenile court heard testimony from the
NPP provider that Mother “did not complete enough of the lesson material

                                       6
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.W.
                        Decision of the Court

and courses . . . in [NPP] to complete [the program] successfully.”
Additionally, Mother falsely reported to the SOP provider that she was
undergoing drug testing. The SOP provider testified that he relied on that
false statement by providing Mother with a certificate of completion for the
SOP program.

¶22            Regardless, Mother’s subjective beliefs about the prospects
for reunification are not relevant to the objective analysis of whether DCS
provided appropriate reunification services prior to termination. The
juvenile court objectively analyzed the sufficiency of the services DCS
offered and Mother’s participation in those services. The juvenile court
properly evaluated the evidence, including testimony from several service
providers, and the court’s conclusion that the reunification services DCS
provided were sufficient was supported by “reasonable evidence and
inferences.” Brionna J., 255 Ariz. at ___ ¶ 30. DCS was not required to
ensure Mother adequately participated in the services provided or leave the
possibility of reunification open for longer than 30 months. See Christina G.,
227 Ariz. at 235 ¶ 15; Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 571,
577 (App. 1994).

                                CONCLUSION

¶23           We affirm.

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

                                          7