Cited by

Sec., ¶ 36 (App. 1999), Father needed to engage in some of the Department’s offerings lest additional services be considered futile, see Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Sec., ¶ 32 (App. 1999)).

Sec., ¶ 34 (App. 1999), the superior court did not err in finding DCS made a diligent effort to provide Mother appropriate reunification services.

Sec., ¶ 37 (App. 1999); Maricopa Cnty.

Sec., -93, ¶¶ 33, 42 (App. 1999).

Sec., ¶¶ 34, 37 (App. 1999).

Sec., -93, ¶¶ 33, 42 (App. 1999).

Sec., ¶ 32 (App. 1999) (quoting Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753).

Sec., ¶ 33 (App. 1999); Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Sec., ¶ 37 (App. 1999), but it is not required to wait an indefinite period before requesting termination of parental rights, Maricopa Cnty.

Sec., ¶ 33 (App. 1999); A.R.S.

Sec., -93, ¶¶ 33, 42 (App. 1999).

–92, ¶¶ 29–34 (App. 1999).

Sec., -93, ¶¶ 27, 34, 42 (App. 1999) (noting that termination based on time in an out-of-home placement or mental deficiency must include proof that DCS "made a reasonable effort to provide [the parent] with rehabilitative services or that such an effort would be futile").