Jasmaine H. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 21-0101

Mother has a long history of substance use (marijuana since age 18; other substances) and was involved with DCS after two children were born substance-exposed; a third child was later born substance-exposed.
Multiple incidents of severe domestic violence between Mother and Father (including strangulation) led to police involvement, psychiatric observation, and removal of Father from the home under safety plans.
Children were placed with a maternal aunt and uncle after Mother’s failure to stabilize; DCS required Mother to address substance abuse, mental-health, and domestic-violence issues before reunification.
Mother received numerous services (inpatient treatment, referrals to outpatient treatment, urinalysis, parent-aide services, supervised visits, two psychological evaluations); she repeatedly tested positive for marijuana, refused recommended outpatient treatment, and used marijuana while pregnant.
Psychologists diagnosed PTSD, personality-disorder traits, and cannabis-use disorder and concluded Mother lacked insight into domestic violence and had not internalized protective parenting skills; the aunt/uncle placement met the children’s needs and they were willing to adopt.
Juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights under the 15‑months‑in‑out‑of‑home‑placement ground and found termination was in the children’s best interests; Mother appealed and the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether statutory ground for termination under A.R.S. § 8‑533(B)(8)(c) (15 months out-of-home) was proven	DCS failed to make diligent efforts and abandoned reunification after learning Father had contact with children (the taunting video)	DCS provided diligent, reasonable services throughout; Mother consistently resisted change and continued unsafe behavior	Court held DCS made diligent efforts, children were in placement >15 months, Mother failed to remedy circumstances, and statutory ground was satisfied
Whether additional reunification services were required after the video	Court should have ordered more services and given Mother more time to progress	DCS is not required to provide futile or unnecessary services; psychologists concluded additional services would not reasonably achieve reunification	Court held it was not error to decline further services; psychologists advised no additional services likely to aid reunification
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	Mother had made progress and termination was premature	Children were thriving in adoptive placement; Mother’s unresolved substance‑use and lack of insight into domestic violence made her unable to meet the children’s special needs	Court held termination was in children’s best interests because the current placement met needs and Mother could not safely parent them now or in near future

Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1 (2016) (appellate standard: view facts in light most favorable to sustaining juvenile‑court order)
Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (termination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 282 (App. 2016) (burden: clear and convincing proof of statutory ground and preponderance for best interests)
Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (juvenile court best positioned to weigh credibility and resolve disputes)
Xavier R. v. Joseph R., 230 Ariz. 96 (App. 2012) (affirm termination unless no reasonable evidence supports it)
Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (App. 2011) (DCS need not provide every conceivable service)
Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185 (App. 1999) (DCS not required to pursue rehabilitative measures that are futile)
Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146 (2018) (best‑interests test: child benefits from termination or is harmed if relationship continues)