Cited by

See § 8-201(25)(a); Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, (we apply clear language of statute, giving meaning to all provisions and considering statute’s context); E.R.

See, e.g., Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).

See Mary Lou C., 207 Ariz. at 49 ¶ 15 (holding that DCS is required to make reasonable efforts to preserve the family under the prior-termination ground); Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (same).

DCS does not need “to provide every conceivable service or to ensure that a parent participates in each service it offers.” Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).

DCS need not provide an indefinite amount of time for remediation and “is not required to provide every conceivable service or to ensure that a parent participates in each service it offers.” Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, P.K., ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Decision of the Court parent participates in each service it offers.” Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

But Mother’s participation in these services ranged from inconsistent to nonexistent, and “DCS is not required to leave the window of opportunity for remediation open indefinitely.” Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).

Tanya K. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2016).

See Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).

See Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, P.K., ¶ 6 (App. 2016) (We “measure the ‘within the preceding two years’ requirement from the date the court terminated the parent’s rights to the first child to the date an interested party petitions to terminate the parent’s rights to the second child.”).

Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).

See Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (citation omitted); Mary Ellen C., 193 Ariz. at 187, ¶ 1.

It must “undertake measures with a reasonable prospect of success in reuniting the family,” id., but it need not provide every conceivable service, ensure the parent participates in each service it offers, undertake rehabilitative measures that are futile, or leave the window of opportunity for remediation open indefinitely, Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, P.K., ¶ 11

DCS is not required to “provide every conceivable service,” but must only provide the parent “with the time and opportunity to participate in programs designed to help him or her become an effective parent.” Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (quoting Maricopa Cty.