Jessica H. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 16-0466

Background

Mother is parent of two children removed in Jan 2014 after medical professionals concluded Mother misrepresented children's medical histories, leading to invasive procedures for one child (G-tube, Mediport).
DCS filed dependency; reunification plan required accurate medical reporting, mental-health treatment, substance testing, counseling, and domestic-violence services.
Mother delayed or refused key services: refused an evaluation with a medical-child-abuse specialist, delayed psychological/psychiatric testing, largely refused substance-abuse treatment, and inconsistently submitted to urinalysis (multiple positives for benzodiazepines and opiates).
Evaluator diagnosed PTSD, borderline intellectual functioning, opioid-use disorder, borderline personality disorder; treatment prognosis was guarded to poor with likely long-term treatment needed to show sustained change.
Therapeutic-visitation reports documented mother’s continued focus on alleged medical issues, deceptive reporting to medical providers, inconsistent responsiveness to feedback, and failure to accept responsibility for removal.
Superior court terminated Mother’s parental rights in Nov 2016 under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c) (15-month out-of-home placement and inability to remedy circumstances); appeal affirmed by Court of Appeals.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DCS proved § 8-533(B)(8)(c): children out-of-home ≥15 months, parent failed to remedy circumstances, and substantial likelihood parent cannot exercise proper care in near future	Mother: she is loving, complied with doctors, and remedied nothing because services were insufficient	DCS: Mother refused/ delayed key services, remained deceptive to medical providers, and evaluators concluded ongoing risk and poor prognosis	Held: Affirmed. Reasonable evidence supports the 15‑month ground — Mother failed to remedy and substantial likelihood of continued inability to parent.
Whether DCS made diligent efforts to provide reunification services	Mother: DCS failed to provide an adequate psychiatric evaluation (e.g., with Dr. Bursch) and other services (e.g., couples counseling)	DCS: Offered comprehensive services; Mother refused or delayed many; additional services would have been futile	Held: Affirmed. DCS made diligent, appropriate efforts; additional services were not required.
Whether termination was in children’s best interests given bond with Mother	Mother: strong parental bond requires preserving relationship	DCS: Children were in a stable, adoptive placement meeting needs; permanency/stability favored adoption	Held: Affirmed. Totality of circumstances showed termination served children’s best interests (stability, adoptability).
Whether other statutory grounds (e.g., mental illness) were proven	Mother: challenges proof of mental-illness ground	DCS: Alternative grounds were available but court need only find one ground	Held: Court relied on 15‑month ground; appellate court affirmed without resolving mental‑illness ground.

Key Cases Cited

Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 239 Ariz. 184 (App. 2016) (standard of review for severance appeals)
Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (App. 2009) (view evidence in light most favorable to sustaining termination)
Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (finding one statutory ground is sufficient to affirm)
Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76 (App. 2001) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute)
Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348 (App. 1994) (diligent-efforts requirement defined)
Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (App. 2011) (services need not include every conceivable or futile service)
James S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 351 (App. 1999) (best-interests standard for severance)
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 96 (App. 2016) (bond evidence not dispositive in best-interests analysis)
Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (App. 2002) (consider adoptability and whether placement meets children’s needs)
Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (App. 2005) (burden of proof in termination proceedings)