Cited by

Sec., –79, ¶ 16 (App. 2014).

Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2014) (holding a parent waives concerns about services if the parent does not timely raise them in superior court).

Sec., -79, ¶¶ 13-16 (App. 2014).

Sec., ¶¶ 13–14 (App. 2014) (“And, at a termination hearing, a parent can dispute evidence that [DCS] claims shows a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services.”).

Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (“This process demands that parents voice their concerns about services to the [superior] court in a timely manner.”).

Sec., -79, ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (holding that the dependency process “demands that parents voice their concerns about services to the juvenile court in a timely manner” because “a parent’s failure to assert legitimate complaints in the juvenile court about the adequacy of services needlessly injects uncertainty and potentia

Sec., (“[T]he juvenile court is in a much better position than this court to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the services provided, as credibility determinations may be required to weigh the evidence presented.”).

Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2014), DCS argues Mother has waived her challenge, contending Mother should have raised the issue before trial rather than for the first time in her trial testimony and closing argument.

Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (holding that when “the court finds that [DCS] has made reasonable efforts to provide such services .

Similarly, in Shawanee S., the court noted that “at the termination hearing, Mother did not argue that ADES failed to make reasonable efforts to provide appropriate reunification services.” ¶ 17 (App. 2014).

Sec., –79, ¶ 16 (App. 2014).

Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2014) (parent waives objection to alleged inadequacy of reunification services by failing to raise the issue promptly to give juvenile court and DCS ”a reasonable opportunity to address the matter”).

Sec., -79 ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (when a parent fails to raise DCS’s diligence in providing reunification services in the superior court, he or she waives it).

Sec., –79 ¶ 16 (App. 2014); Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2014) (A parent who fails to object to a service offered by DCS waives the right “to argue for the first time on appeal that [DCS] failed to offer appropriate reunification services.”).

Sec., as authority for its waiver argument.

Sec., –79 ¶¶ 16–18 (App. 2014), in the exercise of our discretion, we nevertheless address her argument

Sec., –79, ¶ 16 (App. 2014).

Sec., –79 ¶¶ 16–18 (App. 2014), in the exercise of our discretion, we nevertheless address her argument