Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V., 512 P.3d 1019

Child A.V. (b. 2005) had repeated DCS reports from 2006–2013 alleging substance use, domestic violence, neglect, and unstable caregiving; a 2016 incident (Mother posed as child) led to DCS custody and a dependency petition.
Department provided reunification services (DBT, parenting, parent-aide, anger-management referrals); Mother’s participation was intermittent and at times confrontational; providers noted improvement in some areas but persistent volatility and a personality-disorder diagnosis.
Supervised visits were frequently contentious; visits stopped by A.V. in 2020 because of repeated fights; A.V. ultimately supported severance and was in an adoptive placement.
DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c); the superior court granted severance in Feb. 2021.
On appeal, the court reviewed whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported severance (parental unfitness proxy under § 8-533(B)(8)(c)) and concluded the evidence was insufficient to show unfitness, vacated the severance, and remanded for further proceedings about continued oversight rather than dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported severance under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c) (mother unable to remedy circumstances and unlikely to parent effectively soon)	Mother remained volatile, resisted services, had persistent mental-health diagnoses, disrupted providers/meetings, withheld visits, and could not control anger—creating risk to child	Mother improved with services (DBT, parent-aide), disputed that conduct rose to legal unfitness, and argued disagreements did not justify permanent termination	Vacated severance: court held evidence showed bad parenting and volatility but did not prove parental unfitness by clear-and-convincing evidence; severance was not warranted
Appropriate remedy after vacating severance (dismiss dependency vs continue oversight)	N/A (DCS sought severance)	Mother did not press for dismissal on appeal	Remanded: court declined to dismiss dependency outright and directed superior court to consider whether continued supervision or supplementation of parental care under § 8-538(E) is in child’s best interests

Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (standards for severance and best-interest burdens)
Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (severance statutory elements)
Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146 (2018) (parental-unfitness proxy and caution about severance’s gravity)
Marina P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 326 (2007) (focus on circumstances existing at time of severance)
Sandra R. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 248 Ariz. 224 (2020) (harm or risk-of-harm requirement)
In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-6831, 155 Ariz. 556 (App. 1988) (parents’ fundamental rights and limits on using severance for bad parenting)
Donald W. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 9 (App. 2019) (when dismissal of dependency is required vs. continued oversight)