Alyssa W. v. Justin G., J.G., 433 P.3d 3

J.G., born Dec. 2012, lived with mother (Alyssa W.); father (Justin G.) has a history of chronic alcohol abuse and the parents separated.
Mother filed a private petition to terminate Father’s parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) (chronic alcohol abuse preventing discharge of parental responsibilities).
The juvenile court found the statutory elements (history of alcohol abuse, inability to parent, likely continuation) but denied severance because Mother failed to prove she made reasonable reunification efforts or that such efforts would have been futile.
The court also found Father was unaware of his substance problem and that attempts to persuade him would likely be futile, creating inconsistent findings.
Mother appealed; no answering brief was filed. The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and examined whether a private petitioner must prove she personally made reunification efforts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether A.R.S. § 8-533(B) requires a private petitioner to show she personally made reasonable reunification efforts before severing a parent for chronic alcohol abuse	Mother: Private petitioner need only show parent was offered appropriate reunification services or that providing them would have been futile; she should not be required to personally provide services	Father: (no answering brief filed) implied defense that petitioner must show reasonable efforts or futility	The statute does not require a private petitioner to have personally provided reunification services; she must show services were offered to the parent or that offering them would have been futile
Whether Mother met the futility requirement given the record	Mother: Evidence (family court restrictions, supervised visits, testimony of intoxication, Father’s unawareness) shows attempts would have been futile	Father: (no brief) trial court found Mother failed to prove she made reasonable efforts or that efforts would have been futile	Court of Appeals: Record supports futility finding; prior findings establish statutory ground for severance, so remand for best-interests determination

Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 76 (App. 2005) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Superior Court, 186 Ariz. 405 (App. 1996) (apply plain statutory language)
Roberto F. v. DCS, 237 Ariz. 440 (App. 2015) (apply statute as written when unambiguous)
Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (App. 2005) (need clear and convincing proof of a statutory ground for severance and preponderance for best interests)
Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (State must show reasonable reunification efforts or futility in certain statutory contexts)
Jennifer G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 450 (App. 2005) (state’s duty to offer services extended to chronic substance-abuse severance cases)
Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185 (App. 1998) (constitutional requirement that State make reasonable efforts to preserve family before severance)
Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348 (App. 1994) (State must give parents opportunity to participate in programs before severance)
Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JA 33794, 171 Ariz. 90 (App. 1991) (severance permitted only in extraordinary circumstances)
Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action Nos. JS-5209 & JS-4963, 143 Ariz. 178 (App. 1984) (State’s prolonged rehabilitative efforts rationale)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)