Crystal E. v. Department of Child Safety, 241 Ariz. 576

DCS filed a dependency petition alleging neglect of M.E. (b.2013) based on Mother's substance abuse and mental illness; court found M.E. dependent and ordered family-reunification services.
Mother’s participation in services was sporadic: initially refused services, later engaged in counseling and treatment irregularly, missed >8 months of drug testing, and tested positive for methamphetamine in Dec 2015–Feb 2016.
DCS moved to terminate Mother's parental rights on two statutory grounds: chronic substance abuse (A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3)) and 15 months in out-of-home care (A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c)).
The superior court found both statutory grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence and concluded by a preponderance that severance was in M.E.’s best interests.
Mother appealed, challenging only the chronic substance abuse ground and the best-interests finding (she did not challenge the 15-months time-in-care ground).
The court of appeals affirmed termination, holding Mother waived any challenge to the 15-months ground and upholding the best-interests finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether chronic substance abuse ground was proven	Mother argued insufficient evidence of chronic substance abuse	DCS argued evidence (missed tests, multiple positive meth tests, inconsistent treatment) supported the ground	Not reached on merits; Mother challenged only this ground, so appellate court did not decide it because another ground was unchallenged
Whether 15-months time-in-care ground supports termination	Mother did not challenge this ground on appeal	DCS argued M.E. had been in care >15 months despite diligent reunification efforts	Affirmed: Mother waived challenge; 15-months ground independently supports termination
Whether severance was in child’s best interests	Mother argued bond with child made severance harmful	DCS argued child was thriving in a potential adoptive, substance-free placement that met his needs	Affirmed: Evidence showed placement met M.E.’s emotional, medical, and developmental needs and would adopt him, so severance was in best interests
Whether appellate court may address unraised grounds or sua sponte fundamental error	Mother implicitly invites broader review by contesting only one ground	DCS argued court need not address unraised issues; court should exercise restraint absent fundamental error	Court declined to sua sponte reach unraised grounds; may do so only in extraordinary/fundamental-error circumstances, none present here

Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 76 (explaining requirement to prove at least one statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence)
Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 282 (best-interests standard: preponderance showing benefit from severance or harm from continuation)
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1 (appellate standard: affirm severance unless clearly erroneous)
Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (if any statutory ground is supported, court need not address other grounds)
State v. McCall, 139 Ariz. 147 (failure to argue an issue on appeal constitutes waiver/abandonment)
Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (failure to develop argument on appeal results in abandonment/waiver)
Childress Buick Co. v. O’Connell, 198 Ariz. 454 (policy of judicial restraint; issues not clearly raised are waived)
State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545 (court may address fundamental error sua sponte in exceptional cases)
Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348 (adoptability as evidence supporting best interests)
Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (evidence a placement meets child’s needs supports best-interests finding)
Denise H. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 257 (rejecting requirement of Anders-style review in juvenile severance appeals)
John M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 320 (discussing finality concerns in severance appeals)