Brandi K., David C. v. Dcs, D.C., 1 CA-JV 21-0023

Background

Child D.C. born Nov. 2018; Mother tested positive for amphetamines at birth and DCS took temporary custody; parents did not contest dependency based on substance abuse, housing, and unemployment.
Mother admitted prior methamphetamine use, completed substance-abuse treatment Aug. 2020, and lived/worked in a sober living facility (received rent credit); DCS viewed that residence as unstable for a young child.
Father had an extensive history of positive drug tests (marijuana, opiates, methamphetamines, amphetamines) and multiple relapses; he entered inpatient treatment in Dec. 2020.
DCS moved in March 2020 to terminate parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), (8)(b–c) (prolonged substance abuse and time-in-care grounds).
Father failed to appear at the Jan. 5, 2021 telephonic termination hearing; counsel requested a continuance for Father (then in treatment) which the court denied and treated Father’s absence as waiver/admission.
The juvenile court found clear-and-convincing evidence of statutory grounds (Father: substance abuse/time-in-care; Mother: 15-month time-in-care tied to unstable housing and continued relationship with Father) and that termination was in D.C.’s best interests; this Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 15‑month time‑in‑care ground (A.R.S. § 8‑533(B)(8)(c)) was proven as to Mother	Mother: she remedied the circumstances (sober, completed services) and sober living could be suitable; DCS failed to prove she couldn’t parent in near future	DCS: Mother remained in unstable sober‑living, stayed with Father (ongoing substance risk), lacked demonstrated sobriety outside structured setting	Court: Affirmed — reasonable evidence that Mother failed to remedy the conditions and could not parent in near future.
Whether termination was in child’s best interests	Mother: DCS didn’t show termination benefits or harm from severance under totality of circumstances	DCS: child in adoptive foster home meeting needs; reunification would risk instability, exposure to substance abuse, and no financial security	Court: Affirmed — severance served child’s need for permanency; denial would harm child.
Whether Father had "good cause" for failing to appear and whether absence could be excused	Father: he was in inpatient treatment and could not attend; sought continuance	DCS: Father had notice, routinely called in before, didn’t show he was prohibited from calling; objected to continuance	Court: Affirmed — failure to show mistake/excusable neglect or meritorious defense; absence not shown to be for good cause.
Whether denial of Father’s continuance request was an abuse of discretion	Father: requested continuance at hearing due to treatment; earlier court had granted DCS a continuance	DCS: Father’s late request lacked required specificity and timing; prior DCS continuance was timely and justified	Court: Affirmed — denial not an abuse of discretion given late request and lack of good cause.

Key Cases Cited

Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (termination requires statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence and best‑interests finding by preponderance)
Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (App. 2009) (appellate review views evidence in light most favorable to sustaining juvenile court)
Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146 (2018) (deference to juvenile court on resolution of conflicting evidence; best‑interests framework)
Adrian E. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 215 Ariz. 96 (App. 2007) (good‑cause finding for failure to appear reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re MH2003‑000240, 206 Ariz. 367 (App. 2003) (continuance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Christy A. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 299 (App. 2007) (to excuse failure to appear must show mistake/inadvertence or excusable neglect and a meritorious defense)
Trisha A. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 84 (2019) (same standards regarding failure to appear)
James A. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 319 (App. 2018) (continuance standards include consideration of child’s best interests)