In Re Term of Parental Rights as to J.G. and D.G.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 J.G. and D.G.

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0110
FILED 02-17-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD42580, JS22604
The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of H. Clark Jones, LLC, Mesa
By H. Clark Jones
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Anna V. Vaszar
Counsel for Appellee DCS

Law Office of Lincoln Green Jr., PC, Scottsdale
By Lincoln Green
Counsel for Appellee Child J.G.

Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Amanda Adams
Counsel for Appellee Child D.G.
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.G. and D.G.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

F O S T E R, Judge:

¶1 Isabella O. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights as to her children, J.G. and D.G., for neglect,
inability to care for the children due to mental health and time-in-care
placement. She challenges the court’s best-interests findings. This Court
affirms.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This Court views the facts “in a light most favorable to
sustaining the juvenile court’s findings.” Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239
Ariz. 1, 2, ¶ 2 (2016).

¶3 J.G. and D.G. were born in March 2017 and January 2019,
respectively. In December 2022, Phoenix Police received a report that
Mother and the children were living in a home without a lease. Officers
investigated and observed what they described as a hoarder’s home. They
contacted the Department of Child Safety (“Department”). The two
agencies observed exposed fiberglass insulation and electrical wires, drugs,
drug paraphernalia, alcohol bottles, weapons and evidence of fentanyl use
throughout the home and in the children’s room. The Department also
observed that part of the ceiling was collapsing and transient people were
coming in and out of the house regularly.

¶4 The Department reported that Mother told them that J.G.
suffered from leukemia and seizures and that D.G. had stomach cancer and
was autistic. Both children were taking medication, but the Department
noted all the medication in the home had expired. The Department further
noted that Mother reported experiencing depression. Based on these
circumstances, the Department immediately removed the children from
Mother’s care.

¶5 Following immediate removal, the Department petitioned for
formal removal and dependency alleging both children were dependent
due to neglect, living in an unfit home and Mother’s mental illness. After a

2
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.G. and D.G.
Decision of the Court

hearing on the Department’s petition, the juvenile court found both
children dependent as to Mother, granted custody of the children to the
Department and adopted a reunification plan.

¶6 The reunification plan included a referral for Mother to
several services, including drug treatment, a psychological evaluation, a
parenting program, clinically supervised visits, housing resources and
transportation services. The court acknowledged Mother initially
participated in these services and showed some improvement. However,
Mother did not maintain her progress and showed a consistent cycle of
regression throughout the dependency proceedings and leading up to trial.
Mother failed to maintain consistent housing and employment. She also
failed to address her mental health and meet the children’s needs during
supervised visits. The Department consistently reminded Mother she
needed to engage in and complete services before reunification with the
children.

¶7 While Mother participated in reunification services, the
Department conducted a search for acceptable kinship placement for both
children. After failing to find an appropriate kinship placement, the
Department placed the children in foster care. Because Mother reported the
children each suffered from substantial medical needs, the Department
placed the children in separate foster homes to ensure they received
adequate care.

¶8 While in their respective foster homes, each child’s evaluating
doctor questioned the validity of the children’s reported medical
conditions. A review of the children’s health records and medical testing
revealed neither child had cancer, was autistic nor had life-threatening
allergies. Moreover, during the two-year dependency, no one observed J.G.
experience a seizure, despite Mother’s claim he suffered from seizures two
to three times a week before removal.

¶9 The Department retained custody of both children for two
years. During that time, Mother failed to make significant improvements to
reunite with the children. Thus, the Department moved to terminate her
parental rights in December 2024. Mother opposed the termination and
requested a trial. Accordingly, the juvenile court held an evidentiary
hearing on Mother’s parental rights and in July 2025, the juvenile court
terminated her rights based on neglect, mental illness and out-of-home
placement.

3
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.G. and D.G.
Decision of the Court

¶10 Mother timely appealed, and this Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶11 Mother argues that under the totality of the circumstances,
termination of her parental rights was not in the children’s best interests
because the Department separated the children upon removal and they will
likely be adopted into separate homes, severing their sibling relationship.

¶12 This Court “accept[s] the juvenile court’s findings of fact if
reasonable evidence and inferences support them, and will affirm a
[termination] order unless it is clearly erroneous.” Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child
Safety, 245 Ariz. 146, 151, ¶ 18 (2018). Because Mother does not challenge
the statutory grounds for termination, she waives any challenge to the
juvenile court’s findings of neglect, § 8-533(B)(2), mental illness, § 8-
533(B)(3) and out-of-home placement, § 8-533(B)(8)(c). See Crystal E. v. Dep’t
of Child Safety, 241 Ariz. 576, 577, ¶ 1 (App. 2017) (by challenging only the
best-interests findings, mother “has abandoned and waived any challenge
to the court’s finding of the statutory” grounds for termination). And since
statutory grounds for termination exist, this Court reviews only whether a
preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s ruling that termination
was in the children’s best interests. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B); Kent K. v. Bobby
M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288, ¶ 41 (2005). If reasonable evidence supports the
juvenile court’s order, this Court will affirm. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).

¶13 The record supports the juvenile court’s findings that
termination is in both children’s best interests. Evidence showed that the
children had been in out-of-home placement for over two years. Evidence
also showed that during that time the children developed emotionally,
progressed academically and bonded with their foster families. But the
court appropriately weighed these factors against the children’s bond with
Mother and one child’s preference to reunify with Mother.

¶14 The record supports the court’s finding that continuation of
the parent-child relationship would be a detriment to both children. The
testimony and exhibits showed that the possibility of future reunification
would be unlikely in the near future. Evidence also showed that continuing
the reunification plan would extend the uncertainty and emotional toll of
the situation that was a detriment to the children. Additionally, the fact that
the children had lingered in foster care for a prolonged period supports the
court’s findings.

4
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO J.G. and D.G.
Decision of the Court

¶15 Finally, the juvenile court appropriately acknowledged the
children’s separate placements weighed against termination. But children’s
separate placements were the result of Mother’s fictitious reports of their
medical fragility. Moreover, DCS reported that both placements, while
open to accommodating the children living together, “expressed concerns
that both siblings show regression in behaviors they have otherwise
improved with when they are together.” After considering the totality of
circumstances, this Court discerns no error. Mother’s appeal asks this Court
to reweigh the evidence and the effect of termination on the sibling
relationship. This Court does not reweigh evidence. Alma S., 245 Ariz. at
151, ¶ 18.

CONCLUSION

¶16 This Court affirms.

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

5