In Re Guardianship as to J.L.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 GUARDIANSHIP AS TO J.L., A.B., and S.B.

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0050
FILED 12-04-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD31632
The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Office of the Public Advocate, Mesa
By Seth Draper
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Amber E. Pershon
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Amanda Adams
Counsel for Appellees J.L., A.B., S.B.
 IN RE GUARDIANSHIP AS TO J.L., et al.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey
joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 Michelle C. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s
appointment of maternal grandparents as permanent guardians for her
three minor children. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother is the natural parent of the three children involved in
this appeal and another adult son. When the superior court ordered that
permanent guardians be appointed for the children, the minor children
were 17, 13 and 11 years old.

¶3 The children lived with their maternal grandparents in 2013
and 2014, and for a short period in 2015 when the Department of Child
Safety (“DCS”) fielded reports that Mother was abusing alcohol and
physically abusing the oldest child.

¶4 Mother threatened to kill the children in November 2015 and
tried driving herself and the children into a train. She was intoxicated and
on methamphetamine. The children were hysterical and “screaming for
help” when police arrived. DCS removed the children and placed them
with their maternal grandparents. DCS petitioned the superior court to find
them dependent as to Mother on the grounds of abuse and neglect.

¶5 Two years later, in April 2017, the superior court returned the
children to Mother’s custody and dismissed the dependency. Mother had
been sober during that period, and she had successfully participated in
supervised visitation and drug treatment.

¶6 Mother relapsed in 2021. For the next three years, the children
bounced between Mother and maternal grandparents. During this period,
the children saw Mother abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in domestic
violence with multiple romantic partners and attempt a second suicide.
Mother neglected and physically abused the children. She also disenrolled

2
 IN RE GUARDIANSHIP AS TO J.L., et al.
Decision of the Court

the children from school because she was unwilling to drop them off. The
oldest child had 76 absences.

¶7 DCS received reports in August 2023 that Mother was
neglecting the children’s basic and medical needs. Grandmother explained
she had been parenting the children for several months and could not
obtain medical treatment for them because Mother had disappeared for
over a month.

¶8 Mother’s adult son turned eighteen in 2023. Mother and her
boyfriend assaulted that child just before he turned eighteen. Mother
denied her boyfriend did anything wrong. She was later convicted of
assault.

¶9 DCS again removed the children in September 2023 and
placed them with maternal grandparents. DCS filed a second dependency
petition in September 2023. The superior court found the minor children
dependent as to Mother on four grounds: neglect, untreated mental health,
domestic violence and substance abuse.

¶10 For their part, the children participated in therapy and
reported a history of trauma, physical abuse and neglect while in Mother’s
care. The oldest child expressed “fear” of being returned to Mother “due
to her behaviors,” adding that Mother was “dragging [the children] with
her,” and he was “unsure if [she could] truly provide.” The middle child
told the therapist that Mother “often times hit her children” and she also
“fear[ed] going back,” adding that Mother “lack[ed] responsibility.” The
youngest child said she “refuse[d] to go live with [M]other due to her past
inconsistent behaviors at parenting” and reported she feels “forced” to
move back in with Mother.

¶11 The superior court later changed the case plan to family
reunification, concurrent with guardianship, and ordered the children’s
attorney to file a motion for appointment of a permanent guardian. The
court ordered Mother to participate in drug testing and treatment,
counseling, a psychological consultation and supervised visitation.

¶12 By May 2024, DCS reported that Mother completed all
required services and demonstrated sobriety, but lacked stability and safe
housing, and continued speaking to her incarcerated boyfriend who had a
history of domestic violence and substance abuse.

¶13 Mother relapsed five months later and the children’s attorney
moved the superior court to appoint the maternal grandparents as their

3
 IN RE GUARDIANSHIP AS TO J.L., et al.
Decision of the Court

permanent guardians. The court held an evidentiary hearing on that
motion. The DCS case manager testified as an expert witness. He said that
DCS opposed the guardianship motion because he believed Mother was a
safe and appropriate parent. He conceded, however, that he never read the
children’s therapy records.

¶14 The superior court appointed maternal grandparents as the
children’s permanent guardians. It held, among other things, that further
efforts of reunification would be unproductive because although the
children want to continue visitation, they have a traumatic history with
Mother and do not trust her to keep them safe or to provide for their
essential needs. Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S.
§§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A).

DISCUSSION

¶15 We review an order of guardianship for an abuse of discretion
and will affirm unless it is clearly erroneous. In re Guardianship of Kelly, 184
Ariz. 514, 518 (App. 1996); Jennifer B. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 189 Ariz.
553, 555 (App. 1997). The superior court “is in the best position to weigh
the evidence, observe the parties, [and] judge the credibility of witnesses.”
Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). We
will accept the superior court’s factual findings “unless no reasonable
evidence supports those findings.” Id.

¶16 A permanent guardianship may be ordered when in a
child’s best interests, and (1) the child was found dependent; (2) the child
has been in the prospective permanent guardians’ custody for at least nine
months; (3) DCS has made reasonable reunification efforts and further
efforts would be unproductive; and (4) the likelihood of adoption is remote
or termination would not be in the child’s best interests. A.R.S. § 8-
871(A)(1)–(4). The “primary consideration” of the court is the “physical,
mental and emotional needs and safety of the child.” A.R.S. § 8-871(D).

¶17 Mother challenges only the third requirement, arguing that
no reasonable evidence shows further reunification efforts would have
been unproductive. We disagree. The record has ample evidence to
support the third element. That evidence includes the children’s therapy
records in which all three minor children expressed fear about returning to
Mother because she could not keep them safe and would only drag them
along. Add to that Mother’s extensive drug abuse over many years and
that she continued to speak with her incarcerated boyfriend. The superior
court resolves conflicts of evidence, and we do not reweigh the evidence on

4
 IN RE GUARDIANSHIP AS TO J.L., et al.
Decision of the Court

review. See Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at 282, ¶ 12. We stress that in permanent
guardianship proceedings, a primary consideration is the children’s safety
and emotional needs. See A.R.S. § 8-871(D).

¶18 Mother argues the superior court should not have considered
the children’s opinion on whether a permanent guardianship was
appropriate. She relies on Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 9
(App. 2019). That reliance is misplaced. There, we vacated an order
terminating a father’s parental rights to his three-year-old child because no
evidence existed in the record to support an earlier dependency order. Id.
at 13, ¶ 1. Here, we affirm an order appointing maternal grandparents as
permanent guardians, which is unlike the termination of parental rights.

¶19 “A court order vesting permanent guardianship with an
individual divests the birth or adoptive parent of legal custody of or
guardianship for the child but does not terminate the parent’s rights.” A.R.S.
§ 8-872(I) (emphasis added); see also A.R.S. § 8-871(A)(4) (a court may
establish a permanent guardianship only when “termination of parental
rights would not be in the child’s best interests.”). Unlike termination, a
permanent guardianship may be revoked and parental custody restored
under certain circumstances. A.R.S. § 8-873(A)(1) (“The child, a parent of
the child, the guardian of the child or any party to the dependency
proceeding may file a petition for the revocation of an order granting
permanent guardianship if there is a significant change of circumstances,
including [when the] child’s parent is able and willing to properly care for
the child.”).

¶20 What is more, when asked to revoke a guardianship, the court
must consider the “child’s position on the revocation of the guardianship if
the child is at least twelve years of age.” A.R.S. § 8-873(C)(1). This statute
shows the legislature believed a child’s position is relevant to the
guardianship process. Here, two of the minor children were at least twelve
years old, and reasonable evidence was presented that a guardianship
order was in the children’s best interest.

CONCLUSION

¶21 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5