Justin G. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 17-0008

Father (Justin G.) is the biological parent of three children placed in DCS custody in Feb 2015 for substance abuse, mental-health, domestic-violence, and neglect concerns; the court found the children dependent in July 2015.
DCS moved to terminate parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c) based on the children being in out-of-home placement for 15 cumulative months or longer.
Throughout the case DCS referred Father repeatedly to substance-abuse assessment/treatment, drug testing, psychological evaluation, and parent-aide services; many referrals closed or went unused due to Father’s inconsistent participation.
Father admitted a ~10-year history of drug and alcohol abuse, had positive drug tests early in the case, and was incarcerated on a drug-related charge by April 2016 (no firm release date at trial).
The superior court found by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the 15-month placement ground was met; (2) DCS made diligent reunification efforts; (3) Father failed to remedy the circumstances and was unlikely to be capable of proper parental care in the near future. It also found severance was in the children’s best interests.
Father appealed, challenging only (a) sufficiency of DCS’s reunification efforts and (b) the court’s finding that he would not be capable of proper care in the near future due to incarceration. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether DCS made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services	DCS failed to provide appropriate services before Jan 2016 and therefore did not allow Father’s in-custody programming to be considered	DCS provided repeated referrals and re-referrals; Father’s sporadic participation (not DCS) caused failures	Court: DCS satisfied diligence; repeated referrals and re-referrals and efforts were reasonable given Father’s nonparticipation
Whether Father would be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near future	Court improperly relied on Father’s incarceration and overlooked in-custody programming and classes he completed	Father had long substance-abuse history, inconsistent testing/treatment participation, positive tests, and no demonstrated sobriety outside custody; incarceration was one factor among many	Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence supported finding Father unlikely to safely parent in near future and that children would remain in care for an extended period

Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 219 P.3d 296 (App. 2009) (standard of review and reunification-services requirements)
Tanya K. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, P.K., 240 Ariz. 154, 377 P.3d 351 (App. 2016) (DCS need not provide futile or every conceivable service)
Lawrence R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 585, 177 P.3d 327 (App. 2008) (burden for best-interests showing upon severance)
Britz v. Kinsvater, 87 Ariz. 385, 351 P.2d 986 (1960) (consequence of not challenging other findings on appeal)