Cited by

Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶¶ 46–47 (App. 2019).

See Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 69 (App. 2019) (“[T]he court was required to examine not only the final months but the entire dependency.”).

The juvenile court must “consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether [the Department] has made diligent efforts.” Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 49 (App. 2019).

Decision of the Court W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 46 (App. 2019).

Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 46 (App. 2019) 5 JUSTIN K., MORGAN B. v. DCS, L.K.

§ 8-533(B)(8)(c); Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 25 (App. 2019).

Additionally, DCS must “maintain consistent contact with the parent[] and make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult.” Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 50 (App. 2019).

Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 25 (App. 2019) (citations omitted); see also A.R.S.

with § 8-533.B.4; see also Parsons v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., ¶ 11 (App. 2017) (this court first looks “to the statute’s plain language as the best indicator of [legislative] intent[,]” and if the language is clear and unambiguous, this court “must give effect to that language without employing other rules of statutory construction”); Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 25 (App. 2019) (discussing the elements required to establish the out-of-home placement ground).

Additionally, DCS must “maintain consistent contact with the parent, and make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult.” Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 50 (App. 2019).

Additionally, DCS must “maintain consistent contact with the parent[] and make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult.” Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 50 (App. 2019).

In support of this assertion

Cf. Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –19, ¶¶ 27–30 (App. 2019).

Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 49 (App. 2019).

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2007), and will affirm the termination order unless "no one could reasonably find the evidence supporting statutory grounds for termination to be clear and convincing," ¶ 25 (App. 2019) (quoting Jordan C., 223 Ariz. at 93, ¶ 18).

“[W]hat constitutes a [reasonable] effort will vary by case based on the family’s unique circumstances.” Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 50 (App. 2019).

hat means DCS must “identify the conditions causing the child’s out-of-home placement, provide services that have a reasonable prospect of success to remedy the circumstances as they arise throughout the time-in-care period, maintain consistent contact with the parent, and make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult.” Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 50 (App. 2019).

DCS should also “maintain consistent contact with the parent” and “make reasonable efforts to assist the parent in areas where compliance proves difficult.” Donald W. 4 MARIANNA R. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 50 (App. 2019) (citation omitted).

In other words, when reviewing whether DCS has made diligent reunification efforts, the court must examine the “totality of the circumstances of the dependency.” ¶ 68 (App. 2019).

See Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 68 (App. 2019) (explaining that when judging diligent efforts, the superior court looks to the “totality of the circumstances”).

“[W]hen moving to terminate a parent-child relationship under one of the time-in-care grounds, DCS must show that its efforts were not only reasonable but also diligent.” ¶ 47 (App. 2019) (emphasis omitted).

Sec., ¶ 22 (App. 2007); see also Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 26 (App. 2019) (court must consider “both the origin [of the dependency] and any cause arising during the dependency”).