Cited by

Action No. S-111, cf. Joelle M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, (explaining that “dependent child,” despite statutory definition, “is a variable standard, necessarily tethered to the child’s medical condition and individual needs”).

Action No. S-111, overruled on other grounds by In re Appeal in Yavapai Cnty.

She argues the juvenile court should have given her proposed instruction, drawn from language in In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-111, P.2d 809 (1975), stating that terminating parental rights on the basis of neglect requires a showing of “serious harm to the child, be it physical, mental or ‘moral.’” Id.

She argues the juvenile court should have given her proposed instruction, drawn from language in In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-111, , stating that terminating parental rights on the basis of neglect requires a showing of “serious harm to the child, be it physical, mental or ‘moral.’ ” Id.

Juvenile Action No. JS-6520, 157 Ariz. at 246 , 756 P.2d at 343 ; Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-111, , Hyatt, 24 Ariz.App.

1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Juvenile Ay- *337 peal J-A6735, , Juvenile Appeal S-111

Although the parent-child relationship should not be severed unless every effort has been made to preserve the relationship, Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-111, , DES is clearly not obligated to provide services which are futile.

See Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 and No. JS-4863, , Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-111

Juvenile Action No. S-933, supra; In re Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-111, , review denied

While it is true that stale evidence may be insufficient to support severance, Matter of Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-111, P.2d 809 (1975), we need not reach the issue of whether, in this case, two year old acts of abuse may alone support severance.

In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-111

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Review, , .