In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.B.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 B.B.

No. 1 CA-JV 23-0219
FILED 05-23-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD534377
The Honorable Amanda M. Parker, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Jennifer L. Thorson
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Amanda L. Adams
Counsel for Appellee Child B.B.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO B.B.
Decision of the Court

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Shawntay T. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights to Bethany (a pseudonym). The child’s
father (“Father”) is not a party to this appeal. For the following reasons, we
affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Father are the biological parents of Bethany, who
was born in November 2017. Father physically, verbally, and emotionally
abused Mother, and used Bethany as a shield against physical altercations
with other people. Mother tried to get Father out of the house but could not
because his name was on the lease.

¶3 Father invited his drug dealers, Carlus Davis and Issac
McClure, to live with him, Mother, and Bethany. In August 2021, the
dealers did Mother a “favor” by beating up and removing Father from the
home because he abused Mother. Afterward, Mother allowed the dealers to
remain in the home as protection from Father.

¶4 In September 2021, Davis violently assaulted Bethany causing
significant bruising and abrasions. Mother tried to intervene, but Davis
struck her. Davis then held Mother and Bethany hostage in their home for
two days, and withheld food and water for 24 hours. Bethany and Mother
escaped, contacted police, and were taken to the hospital. Medical
personnel examined Bethany and reported extensive bruising, rotten teeth,
matted hair, malnourishment, and developmental delays. DCS placed
Bethany in out-of-home care and petitioned for dependency.

¶5 At a November 2021 hearing, Mother pled no contest to DCS’s
petition alleging neglect and failure to provide proper and effective
parental care and control, so the juvenile court adjudicated Bethany
dependent as to Mother. The court approved a case plan of family
reunification.

¶6 DCS required Mother to participate in drug testing, but she
rarely did. During the two-year dependency, she tested positive at least ten
times and tested negative only four times. The last time Mother submitted
to a drug test was January 2023.

¶7 Because she tested positive for methamphetamine, DCS
informed Mother she needed to participate in substance abuse treatment.
Mother completed a remote substance abuse treatment program through

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

Sage that did not require any testing. Mother tested positive for
methamphetamine while participating in that program. DCS told Mother
that she instead needed to participate in Terros. Terros reached out to
Mother multiple times, but Mother never attended or completed a Terros
intake or participated in further treatment.

¶8 Despite multiple positive tests, Mother largely denied using
drugs. In a conversation with a DCS case manager, Mother mentioned that
she relies on drugs to cope with her trauma and other issues.

¶9 DCS also provided trauma counseling through Family
Service Agency, but Mother quit attending after two appointments. In April
2023, Family Service Agency closed Mother’s counselling referral due to
non-engagement.

¶10 Mother successfully completed two parenting classes
recommended by DCS.

¶11 DCS failed to provide visitation for the first five to six months
after removal. Initially, the delay was due to Mother’s failure to provide
documentation that she was negative for COVID-19. Visitation did not
begin until two months after Mother submitted a negative test.

¶12 Mother did not consistently engage in visitation with
Bethany. She often canceled or failed to show because she was in pain, had
another conflict, or had transportation issues. DCS provided Mother with
transportation to all supervised visits and treatment, and offered make-up
visits when transportation issues arose. Mother has not had a visit with
Bethany since September 2023 because she was in California and canceled
most of her visits, causing the visitation referral to close due to over-
cancellation.

¶13 Mother still lives in the same apartment and has encountered
Davis there since Bethany’s removal. Davis frequents the area because he
has family nearby. When a case manager asked about the potential danger
posed by continued interactions with Davis, Mother dismissed any
potential danger because Davis “doesn’t offer the drugs I use,” causing DCS
concern that Mother would not adequately protect Bethany from Davis or
others.

¶14 In April 2023, DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental
rights under Section 8-533(B)(3). The court held a termination hearing in
November 2023. At the hearing, both of Mother’s case managers testified
that Bethany would be at risk if returned to Mother’s care. One case

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

manager testified that she really wanted Mother to “get [Bethany] back” but
her biggest concern was that Mother’s unaddressed methamphetamine use
made her unable to parent and Mother “disagreed with the whole premise
that the child was in harm,” “she just didn’t get it,” and Mother “wasn’t
going to protect [Bethany]” from the dangerous men she allowed in her life.
Mother testified she was providing appropriate care for Bethany prior to
removal.

¶15 The juvenile court granted the motion to terminate on the
fifteen months time-in-care ground. The court also found that severance
was in the best interests of the child. Mother timely appealed and we have
jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 8-235(A).

DISCUSSION

¶16 On appeal, Mother argues the court’s findings were clearly
erroneous because the evidence did not support removal on the fifteen
months time-in-care ground. Mother does not challenge the court’s best
interests finding.

¶17 When reviewing a juvenile court’s termination order, we will
accept the court’s factual findings “if reasonable evidence and inferences
support them.” Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 255 Ariz. 471, 478, ¶ 30
(2023) (cleaned up). “Because the juvenile court is in the best position to
weigh evidence and assess witness credibility,” this Court views the
evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court’s
decision; we will not reweigh the evidence. See id. at 478–79, ¶¶ 30, 32
(cleaned up). We will affirm “the juvenile court’s legal conclusions
regarding the statutory ground for termination . . . unless they are clearly
erroneous.” Id. at ¶ 31. And the juvenile court’s legal conclusions are clearly
erroneous only if “as a matter of law, no one could reasonably find the
evidence to be clear and convincing.” Id. (cleaned up).

¶18 To terminate the parent-child relationship, the court must
find at least one statutory ground under Section 8-533(B) by clear and
convincing evidence. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22 (2005). The
juvenile court may terminate parental rights under the fifteen months time-
in-care ground if it finds that: (1) “the child has been in an out-of-home
placement for a cumulative total period of fifteen months or longer”; (2)
“the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances” that caused the
out-of-home placement; and (3) “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). A court must also

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

“consider the availability of reunification services to the parent and the
participation of the parent in these services.” A.R.S. § 8-533(D).

¶19 Mother argues she remedied the circumstances that caused
Bethany’s removal. She points to her completion of the Sage program and
parenting classes in arguing that the court “failed to take into consideration
all of the positive strides [Mother] made to reunify with [Bethany].” But the
court expressly considered these efforts in its findings of fact. To the extent
Mother asks us to value her own statements above other record evidence,
“[w]e do not reweigh the evidence.” Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223
Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009).

¶20 Reasonable evidence supports the court’s finding that DCS
met its burden. DCS presented evidence that Mother failed to participate in
the drug testing, substance abuse treatment, and trauma therapy provided
by DCS. While Mother participated in the Sage program, DCS informed her
this program was not sufficient. Despite numerous positive drug tests,
Mother consistently denied using methamphetamine. She still lives in the
same apartment where she has encountered Bethany’s abuser. And
Mother’s testimony that she was providing appropriate care for Bethany
prior to DCS involvement demonstrated that Mother does not understand
the harm she caused Bethany.

¶21 The court did not err by finding that DCS established the
fifteen months time-in-care ground by clear and convincing evidence.

CONCLUSION

¶22 We affirm.

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

5