In Re Dependency as to A.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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 DEPENDENCY AS TO A.G.

No. 1 CA-JV 26-0088
FILED 8-11-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015JD202500072
The Honorable Rick A. Williams, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Tucson
By Laura J. Huff
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.G.
Decision of the Court

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Susan S. ("Mother") appeals the superior court's amended
order of dependency. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother gave birth to A.G. ("Child") in 2019. In July 2025, the
police arrested Mother. While Mother was in jail, Child lived with Mother's
roommate in a "known drug house" with "hoarder conditions." Mother's
boyfriend and Child's aunt took Child away from Mother's roommate, but
Mother objected to Child remaining with her boyfriend, because he had
previously been accused of sexually assaulting Child. In August 2025, the
Department of Child Safety ("DCS") received a report about Child and took
him into custody.

¶3 DCS filed a dependency petition alleging Child was
dependent as to Mother based on neglect and inability to provide proper
and effective parental care and control. See A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(i), (iii).
Mother took hair-follicle and urine drug tests for DCS. Mother's
hair-follicle test came back positive for methamphetamine, and her urine
test came back positive for alcohol and THC. Mother complained that
random testing interfered with her work schedule, so DCS offered to
conduct the tests at set times and use a testing location closer to her
workplace. Despite these accommodations, Mother did not submit to
additional testing.

¶4 In November 2025, the superior court held a contested
dependency proceeding. The superior court issued an order adjudicating
Child dependent as to Mother. Mother appealed. On appeal, DCS
conceded error, and this Court vacated the superior court's order and
remanded for further proceedings.

¶5 On remand, the superior court issued an amended order
adjudicating Child dependent as to Mother. In the amended order, the
superior court found that "Mother has a long-term unhealthy relationship
with substances." The superior court noted Mother had recently tested
positive for methamphetamine, alcohol, and THC. The superior court
concluded that Mother minimized and denied her substance abuse issues,
which "prevent[ed] her from providing a safe, stable, and sober home for
[Child]." Mother timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§§ 8-235(A) and 12-120.21(A).

2

IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.G.
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶6 Mother argues the superior court's amended order of
dependency is clearly erroneous and contrary to the substantial evidence in
the record. "A finding of dependency requires proof by a preponderance
of the evidence." Shella H. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47, 50, ¶ 13 (App.
2016). We review a dependency finding for an abuse of discretion and
affirm unless no reasonable evidence supports the finding. Id.

¶7 Mother argues that the superior court erred in finding Child
dependent because the superior court relied on a 2025 pre-sentence report
from Mother's criminal case in finding that Mother had substance abuse
issues, but that report indicated Mother last used ecstasy in 2005, cocaine in
2006, and methamphetamine in 2022. The superior court "must consider
the circumstances as they exist at the time of the dependency adjudication
hearing in determining whether a child is a dependent child." Id. at 48, ¶ 1.
Mother asserts the substance abuse issues referenced in the report are too
remote to justify a dependency finding in 2026 and the superior court erred
by relying on them. We disagree.

¶8 While the superior court must consider the circumstances as
they exist at the time of the dependency hearing, it need not disregard past
circumstances if they constitute a "substantiated and unresolved threat" to
the child at the time of the dependency hearing. See id. at 51, ¶ 16. "This is
particularly true where, as here, the parent denies the alleged conduct." Id.
The superior court did not abuse its discretion by considering Mother's
history of substance abuse outlined in the pre-sentence report in making its
dependency finding. See id. at 51, ¶ 16 (noting that prior acts "need not be
continuous or actively occurring at the time of the adjudication hearing to
support a finding of dependency on these grounds; the substantiated and
unresolved threat is sufficient").

¶9 Moreover, the superior court also considered Mother's
August 2025 positive tests for methamphetamine, alcohol, and THC. This
recent evidence of drug use also supports the superior court's finding that
"Mother neglected her child and is unwilling or unable to provide proper
and effective parental care and control due to substance abuse." Reasonable
evidence supports the superior court finding that Child is dependent as to
Mother and we do not reweigh this evidence on appeal. In re C.E., 260 Ariz.
209, 214, ¶ 25 (App. 2025).

3

IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.G.
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm.

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

4