Kandyse A. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 16-0403

Mother left her two children with their grandmother for months; grandmother obtained temporary guardianship, later revoked and children returned to Mother.
After repeated concerns about Mother’s housing instability and mental health, the Department filed a dependency petition in Oct. 2014; children were placed with maternal great-uncle and great-aunt and remained there throughout proceedings.
The Department offered reunification services: psychological evaluation, parent aide(s), supervised and therapeutic visitation, individual counseling, and dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT); Mother was inconsistent in attendance and resistant to services.
Children exhibited behavioral problems after visits with Mother; visitation was suspended and later converted to therapeutic visits; Mother frequently failed to redirect or discipline the children and showed limited parenting progress.
The Department changed the case plan to severance and adoption and moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights under mental illness and the 15-month out-of-home placement ground; the juvenile court terminated rights and found termination in the children’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DCS made diligent efforts to provide reunification services (DBT)	Mother: DCS failed to make diligent efforts by allowing breaks in DBT and not providing needed services	DCS: Provided a range of services, sought DBT extension, and services were not futile; short DBT gap insufficient to show lack of diligence	Court: DCS made diligent efforts; short break in DBT did not defeat diligent-efforts finding
Whether there is a substantial likelihood Mother will be unable to exercise proper parental care in the near future (A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c))	Mother: Argued she could improve with more time and further services	DCS: Mother was inconsistent, failed to remedy conditions, children were stable with relatives; further delay was not in children’s interest	Court: Clear and convincing evidence supports substantial likelihood Mother would not be able to parent effectively in near future
Whether termination is in the children’s best interests	Mother: Did not challenge best-interests finding on appeal	DCS: Children were thriving with relatives who are willing to adopt; severance would provide permanency	Court: Termination was in children’s best interests given stability, needs met, and adoptive placement available

E.R. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 56 (discussing standard of review for severance)
Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (if any statutory ground is supported, appellate court need not address others)
Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 282 (burden to prove statutory grounds and best interests)
Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174 (waiver of diligent-efforts claim absent timely objection)
Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (Department must provide services but is not required to provide every conceivable or futile service)
Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 282 (standard for best-interests determination in severance)
Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373 (factors for assessing whether severance benefits the child)